{"id":52815,"date":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","date_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-legal\/supreme\/legal-commentary\/ranking-presidents-utter-nonsense-or-useful-analysis.html"},"modified":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","modified_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","slug":"ranking-presidents-utter-nonsense-or-useful-analysis","status":"publish","type":"supreme","link":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-commentary\/ranking-presidents-utter-nonsense-or-useful-analysis.html","title":{"rendered":"Ranking Presidents – Utter Nonsense Or Useful Analysis?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n
<\/a><\/td>\n

RANKING PRESIDENTS – Utter Nonsense Or Useful Analysis? <\/h1><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n

By JOHN DEAN<\/h2><\/a><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n

Friday, May. 11, 2001<\/td>\n\n <\/tr>\n <\/table>\n

Americans love ranking everything, it seems part of our genome. Competition \nis the America way. We have top ten everything. You name it, we rank it. But for \nthe most part our endless classifying, grouping, and arranging is nothing but \nhigh-grade hokum, mixed with a lot of bunkum. <\/p>\n

When recently looking at a number of rankings of our presidents, I found myself \nasking whether this was utter nonsense or useful analysis. A closer look at polls \nand studies on the topics yielded some interesting insights. <\/p>\n<\/span>\n\n \n \n
<\/td>\n\"[citizen<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n\n

Leading Presidential Ranking Polls <\/b><\/p>\n

\tPolling knowledgeable scholars to rank past presidents began in 1948, when \nhistorian Arthur M. \nSchlesinger, Sr. solicited the views of 55 historians for Life<\/i> magazine. \nDr. Schlesinger repeated this drill in 1962 for the New York Times Magazine<\/i>. \nAnd his son, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., followed in his father’s footsteps in \n1996, for the New York Times Magazine<\/i>.<\/p>\n<\/span> \neach President (omitting W. H. Harrison and Garfield because they died so soon \nafter taking office) in one of five categories: Great, Near Great, Average, Below \nAverage and Failure.” \n

Employing a Justice Potter Stewart type standard (you know pornography when \nyou see it), each of the fifty-five selected scholars decided for themselves how \nto judge greatness. <\/p>\n

The first Schlesinger poll (1948) produced six greats: Lincoln, Washington, \nFDR, Wilson, Jefferson and Jackson. There were two failures: Grant and Harding. \n<\/p>\n

The last Schlesinger poll (1996) found only three greats: Lincoln, Washington \nand FDR. There were five more failures, though, for a total of seven: Pierce, \nGrant, Hoover, Nixon, Andrew Johnson, Buchanan and Harding.<\/p>\n

Other Presidential Ranking Polls<\/b><\/p>\n

Given the media attention generated by the early Schlesinger polls, others soon \nfollowed. In 1970, there was a poll of 571 historians. Based on accomplishments \nof the administration, the top and bottom rankings were vitally identical with \nthe first and last Schlesinger polls. <\/p>\n

\n\nIn 1979, Robert E. DiClerico polled 93 historians to find the ten greatest \npresidents. He reported them in his The American President<\/i>: Lincoln (greatest) \nWashington, FDR, Jefferson, T. Roosevelt, Wilson, Jackson, Truman, Polk and J. \nAdams. <\/p>\n

The flip side of DiClerico’s ten greatest was offered by Nathan Miller in his \n1998 work Star-Spangled Men: American’s Ten Worst Presidents<\/i>: Nixon, Harding, \nBuchanan, Pierce, A. Johnson, Grant, Coolidge, B. Harrison, Taft and Carter. <\/p>\n

The most recent ranking I’ve found was undertaken by the ubiquitous Federalist \nSociety, joining forces with the Wall Street Journal in November 2000. This study \ninvolved 78 presidential scholars – 30 historians, 25 political scientists and \n23 law professors. The scholars were selected in such a way as to assure that \nthe jury was politically balanced. <\/p>\n

Remarkably, the findings of this study are almost identical to those of the \n1996 Schlesinger poll (which was perceived to be a jury of the left). Greats: \nWashington outranked Lincoln, with FDR holding the third slot. Failures: A. Johnson, \nPierce, Harding and Buchanan. No other ranking (so far) has put Buchanan at the \nbottom.<\/p>\n

\tRanking presidential greatness is a parlor game for presidential scholars. \nWho else can distinguish the relative greatness of any outside their memory? <\/p>\n

Look, for example, at Time<\/i> magazine’s longtime presidential pundit Hugh \nSidey, who narrated the ten hour PBS series on all 41 former presidents. “Who \nthe heck knew about Tyler or Fillmore or Hayes,” he admitted. <\/p>\n

\tNot only is ranking the presidents a game, it is one without any real \nrules. Each scholar uses his own criteria to rank. While a few ranking efforts \nhave sought to establish criteria, the measurements have nevertheless remained \nvague and totally subjective. Moreover, the fact that few \u0097 if any \u0097 \nscholars have true expertise outside a few presidencies means that even scholars \nindividual assessments may be suspect. <\/p>\n

\tIn short, viewed objectively, these rankings tell us almost nothing.<\/p>\n

Can We Learn Anything Worth Knowing From Ranking Presidents?<\/b><\/p>\n

These rankings do make one interesting point, however. One man has been consistently \nfound to be “great” for each century in our nation’s history: George Washington \nfor the 18th, Abraham Lincoln for the 19th, and Franklin Roosevelt for the 20th. \n<\/p>\n

The constancy of this judgment over almost a half century is very striking, \ngiven the diversity of criteria, and the uniqueness of each judging panel. It \nunquestionably shows that these three figures have established our norms for presidential \ngreatness: They set the standard to which the wise and honest can repair.<\/p>\n

\tThe other end of the spectrum is less definite, and far more subjective \nand variable. Those ranked as failures are constantly changing their positions, \nboth up and down. <\/p>\n

For example, in the 1948 Schlesinger poll, Andrew Johnson was ranked 19th, \nbut he fell to 22nd in the 1962 Schlesinger poll, to 37th<\/sup> in the 1996 \nSchlesinger poll, and to 36th<\/sup> in the 2000 Federalist Society-Wall Street \nJournal ranking poll. One can almost hear him protesting: “What did I do?”<\/p>\n

While Andrew Johnson has been heading downwards, Ulysses Grant has been steadily rising. He moved from being tied with Harding as one of two failures in 1948 to \nbeing rated as simply below average in 2000. Given the new interest in him, he \nmay go higher in the next poll.<\/p>\n

Warren G. Harding Is Not A Role Model for a Failed Presidency<\/b><\/p>\n

Meanwhile, everyone’s long-time worst president, Warren G. Harding is anything \nbut a role model for failure. <\/p>\n

Indeed, at the time of his death in office, he was widely respected and greatly \nloved. He was a president who actually cut taxes while helping the nation accomplish \nthe transition from a wartime (WWI) economy. And he created new agencies of government \nthat remain with us to this day: Veterans Affairs and the Bureau of the Budget.<\/p>\n

Harding, a highly articulate president, spoke out against the plight of blacks \nand against racism when it was highly unpopular to do so. He hired for his cabinet \nmen who were among the best and brightest, such as Herbert Hoover, his Secretary \nof Commerce, and Charles Evans Hughes, his Secretary of State.<\/p>\n

The criminal scandals that engulfed Harding’s presidency \u0097 after his death \n\u0097 were not of his making nor was he complicit in them. His alleged extramarital \nactivities surfaced after his death, too. That meant, of course, that he thus \nhad no opportunity to explain or apologize, to take or deny responsibility. Moreover, \nif infidelity determines the rank of a president, many who followed should have \ntheir ranking adjusted. <\/p>\n

The polls’ unfortunate tendency to confine Harding to history’s dustbin has \nlong made me highly suspicious of this parlor game’s significance. A presidency \nwell worth studying is ignored and disparaged.<\/p>\n

Good Entertainment Value<\/b><\/p>\n

\tI would be the first to admit that these presidential rankings are great \nfun, and good entertainment. That is about it, however. <\/p>\n

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. has spent a life-time studying the presidency. Few, if \nany, know more. When he agreed to another round in the “game of ranking” it seemed \nto me he did so with reluctance. He noted that “making judgments about some of \nthe Presidents since Eisenhower stumped” him. And if he had difficulty, who would \nnot? Only he is candid enough to admit it.<\/p>\n

Still, the game of ranking is, it must be said, a good game. But remember the words of H. Allen Smith: “The human animal differs from the lesser primates in \nhis passion for lists of Ten Best”\t— including the ranking of presidents.<\/p>\n<\/span> \n\n

\n\n\n<\/a>\nJohn Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former Counsel to the President of the United States.\n\n

\n\n<\/p>\n <\/div>

\n \n Was this helpful?<\/span>\n \n Yes<\/span>\n \n \n \n <\/path>\n <\/g>\n \n \n <\/rect>\n <\/clipPath>\n <\/defs>\n <\/svg>\n <\/i>\n <\/button>\n \n No<\/span>\n \n \n \n \n <\/g>\n \n \n \n <\/clipPath>\n <\/defs>\n <\/svg>\n <\/i>\n <\/button>\n <\/div>\n <\/span>\n