Tuesday, September 30, 2008
The final countdown, then the Pendragon will return to more normal concerns such as championing his choice for President.
10. JFK. Gets high marks for economic policy, and national defense, if not for character. I always thought that the worst Kennedy is still alive.
9. Harry Truman. Need I say more?
8. FDR. High marks for wartime leadership and foreign policy (a perfect 5), surprisingly low marks for his handling of the economy, which actually prolonged the Great Depression until the Japanese navy helped him out.
7. Ulysses S. Grant/Dwight D. Eisenhower. These are the only two presidents to use the military to enforce civil rights for blacks so it is fitting that they tie. How does Grant make it in to the top ten? He was committed to finishing the job of the Civil War and if his economic policy failed, he gets top marks for spreading liberty, for national defense, and for character.
6. James Monroe. While he takes credit for a lot that his secretary of state John Quincy Adams was responsible for. But his firm stance in foreign policy, his willingness to bend his preconceived animosity to the English to enforce the Monroe Doctrine make him easily one of the greatest of all time.
5. William McKinley. Not normally mentioned as a top president, McKinley was very strong on national defense, foreign policy and economic policy. He loses a few marks for not spreading liberty as well as he might but we occupied Cuba only shortly before he died so it may not be entirely his fault.
4. Theodore Roosevelt. Enough said.
3. Ronald Reagan. Strong across the board: his economic policies ended forever double-digit inflation and unemployment, while actually raising taxes on the rich and lessening the burden on middle-class families; his position on national defense and foreign policy made possible the end of the Cold War as well as restoring American hopes again. His character and competence were unparalleled in the last few decades (although when compared to whichever administration comes next, W is going to look like a genius).
2. Abraham Lincoln. Considered the best for his Civil War heroics, Lincoln also possessed amazing competence in crafting a wartime government, stellar character, and diplomatic wiliness to avoid war with the European powers while waging and winning a war on his own shores.
1. George Washington. Statistically tied with Lincoln for first, Washington gets a bump up because he was the first. He not only ran the American economy, he created it, with help from his protoge Hamilton. He not only maneuvered through wars and rumors of wars without sinking the country, he set all the precedents for foreign policy that lasted over a century. It is cliche to say it, but without Washington, the new nation may well have been dead in the water.
Discuss!
10. JFK. Gets high marks for economic policy, and national defense, if not for character. I always thought that the worst Kennedy is still alive.
9. Harry Truman. Need I say more?
8. FDR. High marks for wartime leadership and foreign policy (a perfect 5), surprisingly low marks for his handling of the economy, which actually prolonged the Great Depression until the Japanese navy helped him out.
7. Ulysses S. Grant/Dwight D. Eisenhower. These are the only two presidents to use the military to enforce civil rights for blacks so it is fitting that they tie. How does Grant make it in to the top ten? He was committed to finishing the job of the Civil War and if his economic policy failed, he gets top marks for spreading liberty, for national defense, and for character.
6. James Monroe. While he takes credit for a lot that his secretary of state John Quincy Adams was responsible for. But his firm stance in foreign policy, his willingness to bend his preconceived animosity to the English to enforce the Monroe Doctrine make him easily one of the greatest of all time.
5. William McKinley. Not normally mentioned as a top president, McKinley was very strong on national defense, foreign policy and economic policy. He loses a few marks for not spreading liberty as well as he might but we occupied Cuba only shortly before he died so it may not be entirely his fault.
4. Theodore Roosevelt. Enough said.
3. Ronald Reagan. Strong across the board: his economic policies ended forever double-digit inflation and unemployment, while actually raising taxes on the rich and lessening the burden on middle-class families; his position on national defense and foreign policy made possible the end of the Cold War as well as restoring American hopes again. His character and competence were unparalleled in the last few decades (although when compared to whichever administration comes next, W is going to look like a genius).
2. Abraham Lincoln. Considered the best for his Civil War heroics, Lincoln also possessed amazing competence in crafting a wartime government, stellar character, and diplomatic wiliness to avoid war with the European powers while waging and winning a war on his own shores.
1. George Washington. Statistically tied with Lincoln for first, Washington gets a bump up because he was the first. He not only ran the American economy, he created it, with help from his protoge Hamilton. He not only maneuvered through wars and rumors of wars without sinking the country, he set all the precedents for foreign policy that lasted over a century. It is cliche to say it, but without Washington, the new nation may well have been dead in the water.
Discuss!
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Finally, I have gotten back! The beginning of semester workload hit me a lot sooner than I thought. Here are the next few rankings (from the bottom).
22. Bill Clinton. Gets some points for seeing the writing on the wall and cooperating with a Republican Congress. He was also surprisingly capable when not, er, occupied with things south of the border. Yet competence doesn't get you much when you're competent at corruption (again, both current candidates take notice).
21. James K. Polk. His western expansion was at the price of freedom for so many and his policies helped contribute to a bloody Civil War. It seems hardly worth it, especially since it's what landed us with Oregon and California.
20. Thomas Jefferson. Usually, the Prince of Presidents for liberal historians, Jefferson's economic policies were a disaster. Even his vaunted purchase of Louisiana merely ensured southern dominance of the country (with its protected institution of slavery) for the next six decades. And he only managed that because he violated all his most cherished principles of executive restraint. Furthermore, having come to office, vowing to abolish the controversial Alien and Sedition Acts he jailed more opponents of his brainless embargo than Adams did. His belligerent foreign policy coupled with a domestic lack of concern for the state of our armed forces led like day into night to the War of 1812, a careless war we weren't prepared to win.
19. Grover Cleveland. Was a decent man and had a decent first time. His second term, however, like many presidents, was pretty much lackluster, if not downright awful.
18. Lyndon B. Johnson. His foreign policy and handling of the Vietnam War were an unmitigated disaster. The main point of his presidency on that level should have been: Don't fight a war you're not prepared to win. On the domestic front, his welfare programs and War on Poverty have proven to be as much a quagmire as Vietnam. He does, however, get some point for defying his party's southern wing (and siding mostly with Republicans in Congress) to pass and sign the Civil Rights Act, a great expansion of civil liberties for African-Americans.
17. Benjamin Harrison. One of the few "Ohio Republicans" who attempted, albeit somewhat halfheartedly, to relieve southern blacks from the torment of their former masters. For someone supposedly in bed with big business, he did more to expand freedom in his one term than the more reform-minded presidents did.
16. Calvin Coolidge. High marks for the economy, if not for foresight. Low marks for foreign policy. Decidedly average overall.
15. Zachary Taylor. Normally way down the list due to the shortness of his term, Taylor stood up to secessionists and broke with the establishment of his party by being willing to listen to arguments against the expansion of the Missouri Compromise.
14. George H.W. Bush. Stunningly successful, although not entirely, in foreign policy, he crashed and burned at home, although again not as complete a failure as many in the media made him out to be.
13. James Madison. Had trouble running a war his predecessor had ill-prepared him for, but his willingness to bend on economic issues led to the re-establishment of the National Bank, which kept the American economy running until Andrew Jackson shut it down. Unlike both his predecessors, Madison was widely criticized yet did not jail a single person who spoke against his administration.
12. John Quincy Adams. Gets this high a mark mostly for character and competence. His economic policy was basically sound: invest in the country, not out of it. He even attempted to stand up for Native Americans being run off their land by Georgian settlers. His successor caved entirely. Following his presidency, Adams fought for the abolition of slavery and even argued the case of a shipload of escaped slaves before the United States Supreme Court, a decision which he won and the slaves were given their freedom.
11. John Adams/Woodrow Wilson. A statistical tie I was unwilling to break. Adams gets high marks for realism, for preparing the nation for war and yet negotiating strenuously to avoid it. His foreign policy and national defense credentials are unimpeachable (this from a man who never fired a gun in anger). However, his unwillingness to tolerate debate are unmistakable flaws that lowered his score. Wilson gets high marks for foreign policy and for character and competence. His economic policies and the fact that it's hard to argue he extended freedoms for others when he sanctioned the virulently racist film "The Birth of a Nation" and the regimes he propped up in Europe turned into militaristic dictatorships. He also, like Adams, refused to tolerate criticism and hundreds went to jail for criticizing his policies. I also like the fact that they tied due to the fact that they were both highly unlikable as people.
Stay tuned: top ten coming soon!
22. Bill Clinton. Gets some points for seeing the writing on the wall and cooperating with a Republican Congress. He was also surprisingly capable when not, er, occupied with things south of the border. Yet competence doesn't get you much when you're competent at corruption (again, both current candidates take notice).
21. James K. Polk. His western expansion was at the price of freedom for so many and his policies helped contribute to a bloody Civil War. It seems hardly worth it, especially since it's what landed us with Oregon and California.
20. Thomas Jefferson. Usually, the Prince of Presidents for liberal historians, Jefferson's economic policies were a disaster. Even his vaunted purchase of Louisiana merely ensured southern dominance of the country (with its protected institution of slavery) for the next six decades. And he only managed that because he violated all his most cherished principles of executive restraint. Furthermore, having come to office, vowing to abolish the controversial Alien and Sedition Acts he jailed more opponents of his brainless embargo than Adams did. His belligerent foreign policy coupled with a domestic lack of concern for the state of our armed forces led like day into night to the War of 1812, a careless war we weren't prepared to win.
19. Grover Cleveland. Was a decent man and had a decent first time. His second term, however, like many presidents, was pretty much lackluster, if not downright awful.
18. Lyndon B. Johnson. His foreign policy and handling of the Vietnam War were an unmitigated disaster. The main point of his presidency on that level should have been: Don't fight a war you're not prepared to win. On the domestic front, his welfare programs and War on Poverty have proven to be as much a quagmire as Vietnam. He does, however, get some point for defying his party's southern wing (and siding mostly with Republicans in Congress) to pass and sign the Civil Rights Act, a great expansion of civil liberties for African-Americans.
17. Benjamin Harrison. One of the few "Ohio Republicans" who attempted, albeit somewhat halfheartedly, to relieve southern blacks from the torment of their former masters. For someone supposedly in bed with big business, he did more to expand freedom in his one term than the more reform-minded presidents did.
16. Calvin Coolidge. High marks for the economy, if not for foresight. Low marks for foreign policy. Decidedly average overall.
15. Zachary Taylor. Normally way down the list due to the shortness of his term, Taylor stood up to secessionists and broke with the establishment of his party by being willing to listen to arguments against the expansion of the Missouri Compromise.
14. George H.W. Bush. Stunningly successful, although not entirely, in foreign policy, he crashed and burned at home, although again not as complete a failure as many in the media made him out to be.
13. James Madison. Had trouble running a war his predecessor had ill-prepared him for, but his willingness to bend on economic issues led to the re-establishment of the National Bank, which kept the American economy running until Andrew Jackson shut it down. Unlike both his predecessors, Madison was widely criticized yet did not jail a single person who spoke against his administration.
12. John Quincy Adams. Gets this high a mark mostly for character and competence. His economic policy was basically sound: invest in the country, not out of it. He even attempted to stand up for Native Americans being run off their land by Georgian settlers. His successor caved entirely. Following his presidency, Adams fought for the abolition of slavery and even argued the case of a shipload of escaped slaves before the United States Supreme Court, a decision which he won and the slaves were given their freedom.
11. John Adams/Woodrow Wilson. A statistical tie I was unwilling to break. Adams gets high marks for realism, for preparing the nation for war and yet negotiating strenuously to avoid it. His foreign policy and national defense credentials are unimpeachable (this from a man who never fired a gun in anger). However, his unwillingness to tolerate debate are unmistakable flaws that lowered his score. Wilson gets high marks for foreign policy and for character and competence. His economic policies and the fact that it's hard to argue he extended freedoms for others when he sanctioned the virulently racist film "The Birth of a Nation" and the regimes he propped up in Europe turned into militaristic dictatorships. He also, like Adams, refused to tolerate criticism and hundreds went to jail for criticizing his policies. I also like the fact that they tied due to the fact that they were both highly unlikable as people.
Stay tuned: top ten coming soon!
Sunday, September 07, 2008
27. Richard Nixon. Stunning achievements in foreign policy mixed with stunning failures in domestic policy and a shifty character make him a below-average president but not an outright failure.
26. John Tyler. The first Vice-President to assume the office upon the death of a President, Tyler deserves credit for seizing control and governing with a mandate, but his sympathy for southern sympathizers was what fueld his passion for taking Texas, later accomplished by his successor, James Polk.
25. Warren G. Harding. A poor leader and a near-failure at foreign policy, he actually excelled at economic policy.
24. Gerald Ford. A decent man with decent leadership skills. He provided honesty when it was needed, but could not provide clear direction on the economy or in foreign policy. His strength lies mostly in that he was not Richard Nixon.
23. William Howard Taft. A likeable man and very big, but Taft simply did not have the stomach to be a staunch chief executive.
26. John Tyler. The first Vice-President to assume the office upon the death of a President, Tyler deserves credit for seizing control and governing with a mandate, but his sympathy for southern sympathizers was what fueld his passion for taking Texas, later accomplished by his successor, James Polk.
25. Warren G. Harding. A poor leader and a near-failure at foreign policy, he actually excelled at economic policy.
24. Gerald Ford. A decent man with decent leadership skills. He provided honesty when it was needed, but could not provide clear direction on the economy or in foreign policy. His strength lies mostly in that he was not Richard Nixon.
23. William Howard Taft. A likeable man and very big, but Taft simply did not have the stomach to be a staunch chief executive.
Saturday, September 06, 2008
32. Andrew Johnson. The man who succeeded Lincoln had none of his ability or character. He circumvented Congress, sold out free African-Americans to raise his poor white friends, essentially ensured the failure of Reconstruction and the subjection of blacks in the South for the next 100 years. There is a reason he was the first president to be impeached.
31. Jimmy Carter. The worst living ex-President, he presided over such stunning failures of foreign and domestic policy it's a wonder he dares believe he has any kind of credibility today.
30. Herbert Hoover. Not a bad man and certainly should have been qualified, but failed to translate lofty words into action when the nation needed him most.
29. Andrew Jackson. This one surprises people. From the point of view of a man who elevated the Presidency, Jackson is generally ranked Near-Great. But his economi policies caused the second-worst depression in the nation's history, he made no effort to eradicate slavery and while he was willing to enforce the government's will in the nullification crisis, would not lift a finger to enforce the government's support for native peoples against the encroaching state of Georgia and thus did not do anything to spread freedom to others.
28. Chester A. Arthur. Generally ranked higher for his reforming spirit, Arthur and others of his ilk fall short because the so-called "reformers" tended to be highly racist and only interested in reforming government for their white counterparts. Against this failure, saying no once in awhile to political bosses really isn't that impressive.
To be continued.....
31. Jimmy Carter. The worst living ex-President, he presided over such stunning failures of foreign and domestic policy it's a wonder he dares believe he has any kind of credibility today.
30. Herbert Hoover. Not a bad man and certainly should have been qualified, but failed to translate lofty words into action when the nation needed him most.
29. Andrew Jackson. This one surprises people. From the point of view of a man who elevated the Presidency, Jackson is generally ranked Near-Great. But his economi policies caused the second-worst depression in the nation's history, he made no effort to eradicate slavery and while he was willing to enforce the government's will in the nullification crisis, would not lift a finger to enforce the government's support for native peoples against the encroaching state of Georgia and thus did not do anything to spread freedom to others.
28. Chester A. Arthur. Generally ranked higher for his reforming spirit, Arthur and others of his ilk fall short because the so-called "reformers" tended to be highly racist and only interested in reforming government for their white counterparts. Against this failure, saying no once in awhile to political bosses really isn't that impressive.
To be continued.....
Friday, September 05, 2008
I'll start from the bottom few of the Presidential rankings. George W. Bush was not ranked, nor were William Henry Harrison or James Garfield who held office too short a time to give an idea. The remaining 37 were rated this way.
37. James Buchanan. There is just nothing good to say about him. He was a failure in every sense. He should have been competent (kind of like John McCain) given all the government offices he held throughout his long life, but he had no plan for the presidency and ended up unable to prevent one of the greatest calamities in American history.
36. Franklin Pierce. Statistically tied with Buchanan for dead-last but gets a slight bump-up since he wasn't in office when the South seceded. He shouldn't be too happy about it.
35. Millard Fillmore. He was thrust into an office he wasn't prepared for, but did nothing with it either. Instead, he let pro-slavery apologists dictate to him and helped set up the Civil War.
34. Martin Van Buren. In addition to blindly following Jackson's disastrous policies, Van Buren gets an F for being so politically motivated he had no personal morals and for his role in trying to get a shipload of free slaves returned to slavery in Spain, all in the name of getting re-elected.
33. Rutherford B. Hayes. Not a bad man, but his complicity in the corrupt bargain that made him president caused him to sell out freed blacks in the South and allow the return of pre-Civil War power holders that Grant had crushed.
To be continued....
37. James Buchanan. There is just nothing good to say about him. He was a failure in every sense. He should have been competent (kind of like John McCain) given all the government offices he held throughout his long life, but he had no plan for the presidency and ended up unable to prevent one of the greatest calamities in American history.
36. Franklin Pierce. Statistically tied with Buchanan for dead-last but gets a slight bump-up since he wasn't in office when the South seceded. He shouldn't be too happy about it.
35. Millard Fillmore. He was thrust into an office he wasn't prepared for, but did nothing with it either. Instead, he let pro-slavery apologists dictate to him and helped set up the Civil War.
34. Martin Van Buren. In addition to blindly following Jackson's disastrous policies, Van Buren gets an F for being so politically motivated he had no personal morals and for his role in trying to get a shipload of free slaves returned to slavery in Spain, all in the name of getting re-elected.
33. Rutherford B. Hayes. Not a bad man, but his complicity in the corrupt bargain that made him president caused him to sell out freed blacks in the South and allow the return of pre-Civil War power holders that Grant had crushed.
To be continued....
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
I normally don't do this till February but to cheer myself up from the impending election of Herbert Hoover or Al Smith (oh, sorry, I thought I was in the 1920s for a minute), I've decided to again retreat from the political abyss and talk some history. I recently read a book entitled "The Leaders We Deserved (and a Few We Didn't)" by Alvin Felzenberg which challenged the way historians rank the presidents as far too dependent on the individual historians' point of view. He is right. Since Arthur Schlesinger introduced the idea in the late 50s, the strategy of lumping the presidents into Great, Near-Great, Above Average, Average, Below Average, and Failure categories requires the historian to make a values judgment on some mythical single-issue presidency. What Felzenberg suggests is a way to make the ranking at least slightly more objective: by ranking all the presidents by six different criterion: character, competence, foreign policy, economic policy, spreading liberty to others, and national defense. By breaking into these categories, Felzenberg hopes to force historians to defend their choices by appealing to facts, rather than merely abusing their authority by decreeing which presidents are the greatest. I like the idea--in fact, I'm going to take it one step further. After ranking each president on a scale of 1-5, with 5 being great, 4 being near-great, 3 being average, 2 being below average and 1 being failure, I have totaled their scores and averaged them out to reach a mathematical consensus on a ranking of the presidents.
Now, of course, I do not claim to be free from partiality in this. I am attempting merely to constrain my natural opinions a bit and hope other historians will soon take up the call. Some presidents ended up statistically tied. Where I felt qualified to make a judgment, I broke the tie; where I was less informed, I left them tied. Obviously, my bias played a bit into that but I attempted to keep it based as much as possible on facts.
The best thing about ranking the presidents this way is the number of pedestals that fall. This country has survived more than 200 years being run by mostly idiots (or at least, well below average) leaders. This is encouraging given the two candidates for this election. The surprising thing is that, while Washington and Lincoln escape unscathed, the normal idols of the historian--Jefferson, Jackson, and Wilson--sink down the list considerably. Meanwhile, the historians' favorite scapegoats--U.S. Grant, William McKinley and Warren Harding--actually earn much higher rankings than traditionally given.
Now that I have you tantalized: I'm not starting the actual list until tomorrow. Stew in your juices till then!
Now, of course, I do not claim to be free from partiality in this. I am attempting merely to constrain my natural opinions a bit and hope other historians will soon take up the call. Some presidents ended up statistically tied. Where I felt qualified to make a judgment, I broke the tie; where I was less informed, I left them tied. Obviously, my bias played a bit into that but I attempted to keep it based as much as possible on facts.
The best thing about ranking the presidents this way is the number of pedestals that fall. This country has survived more than 200 years being run by mostly idiots (or at least, well below average) leaders. This is encouraging given the two candidates for this election. The surprising thing is that, while Washington and Lincoln escape unscathed, the normal idols of the historian--Jefferson, Jackson, and Wilson--sink down the list considerably. Meanwhile, the historians' favorite scapegoats--U.S. Grant, William McKinley and Warren Harding--actually earn much higher rankings than traditionally given.
Now that I have you tantalized: I'm not starting the actual list until tomorrow. Stew in your juices till then!
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
While Obama's skillful managing of his campaign does indeed make him more qualified to be President than Sarah Palin, there is something bothering me about the media's treatment of this campaign. Eight years ago, Texas governor George W. Bush was considered a lightweight in national politics and the word tossed around when he picked Washington insider Dick Cheney as VP was "gravitas." Now Obama's been in Washington for a grand total of four years, so if anyone needs gravitas it is him. Yet I can find the word nowhere in the constant media coverage of the Obama/Biden campaign. That is clearly what Obama is doing, however; he needs Biden to balance his ignorance and teach him how to (occasionally) work across the aisle. The media seems to believe that Obama is some kind of seasoned statesman.
In the meantime, Palin has five young children, the youngest of whom is still breastfeeding and the eldest of whom just got pregnant out of wedlock. When is she going to have time to serve as VP let alone if McCain needs her to take over as President? This is the worst vice-presidential selection since McGovern picked Eagleton and it virtually ensures an Obama victory come November 4.
In the meantime, Palin has five young children, the youngest of whom is still breastfeeding and the eldest of whom just got pregnant out of wedlock. When is she going to have time to serve as VP let alone if McCain needs her to take over as President? This is the worst vice-presidential selection since McGovern picked Eagleton and it virtually ensures an Obama victory come November 4.
