An interesting item: historians think they have located a mass grave at the Bunker Hill battlefield in Charlestown, Mass. They'd like to use sophisticated radar equipment to make sure of their conclusions, but there is a problem -- it's underneath some lovely private gardens. "No wonder our plants grow so well," said one homeowner.

It's your bear now

Finally, we see that the economy is called the president's own -- The Obama Market -- rather than the same "we inherited this mess" trope his spokesmen have used since inauguration. Although at last look, MSNBCers were still cawing about the nastiness of the previous president, as if to distract themselves as the walls fall around them. According to Bloomberg, the market has lost 20% of its value since BO took office, the worst opening administration performance in 90 years.

And an excellent if wonkish overview of BO economic policy, if you can call it that, at the WSJ today.

Sons of Nixon

Drudge's headline says "New Enemies List" regarding the White House campaign against Rush Limbaugh.

Funny, but I thought the exact same thing this morning, but in another context. Is it me, or is the Obama White House exceptionally prickly when it comes to criticism? The media has been swooning over them for so long that when any doubts are aired by the Fourth Estate, they can't help but reply. Witness Press Secretary Robert Gibbs the other week answering criticism from CNBC's Rick Santelli, and then again this week from another CNBCer Jim Cramer. My first thought was "don't you have anything better to do with your time than whine about all this ... say fixing banks?"

Now the calculated Rush campaign is revealed as having been hatched months ago, even before election day. Taken together, these people seem to have a Nixonian paranoia that somewhere, sometime, someone is saying something bad about them. And that these people should be duly noted and not allowed to make their assertions unanswered.

I picture Gibbs and Emmanuel sitting in the WH, with an LBJ-style bank of tv sets, clicking furiously between cable stations, their thumbs numb from hitting the volume and mute buttons. "Aha! Santelli just criticized us! Make a note. We'll blast him tomorrow." "Aha! Cramer just said nasty things! What is it with CNBC! They're in cahoots with evil bankers! Make a note. We'll get them tomorrow too."

Pretty soon we'll start comparing Gibbs to Ron Zeigler, Emmanuel to HR Haldeman, and Axelrod to Ehrlichman ... somewhere, an enemies list is being drawn up.

When I was at a bookstore about a week ago, a customer came in and asked for a copy of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. I chuckled to myself, wondering if he wanted to read it or use the tome as a door stop. But apparently sales of Rand's opus are way up ... thanks to El Presidente?

If we can combine "enormous" and "gigantic" to get "ginormous," can we combine the same to get "egantic?"

Just wondering.

Glad to see NRO sensibly casting a handful of presidential votes for Arthur, Harding, Polk, Fillmore, and Coolidge. I especially like the libertarian logic on William Henry Harrison being the greatest: he died before he could do any damage.

Here, here.

As it happens, I watched two Lincoln specials last night on tv, both on his youth and pre-presidential/legal career.

I'd like to make that host of history videographers out there aware, that I'm more than available for any "Young Franklin Pierce," "Young James Buchanan," "Young Chester Arthur," or "Young Warren Harding" PBS specials you're thinking about. I bet Ken Burns has one of those in the works.

Doc's subjective presidential ranking and very brief explanation (Using C-Span's method)

1. Washington – no surprises here, the virtuous standard is set
2. Reagan – morning in American again, end of Cold War, economic boom
3. McKinley – hugely popular, war president, economic boom, clear agenda
4. Eisenhower – economic recovery, steady hand in early Cold War
5. Lincoln – remember how many people voted against him in ’60 & ’64? – should it matter?

6. Jackson – his name fits an entire era – every Democrat follows his lead until 20th century
7. TR – like him or not (not), he did what he set out to do – and they loved him for it
8. Monroe – steady hand in postwar America – success at home and abroad – unheralded
9. Coolidge – weathered Harding’s death, massively popular, boom times on his watch
10. Polk – has a one-termer ever had this much success? – but for his illness…

11. Harding – real accomplishments at home and abroad – worked himself to death
12. Jefferson – but for that embargo, and the depression, he’d be higher
13. Arthur – stunningly honest, rebuilt the navy, economic success, respected man
14. Fillmore – no respect but success – only Ike did more for American transportation network
15. John Adams – held firm against war hawks who wanted war with France

16. FDR – New Deal flop, real leadership in WW2 – pre-'41 mediocrity, but good war president
17. Cleveland (2) – honest man in a dishonest time – hard worker with principles
18. Pierce – one of the most honest presidents and most honest administration
19. Truman – courageous in Cold War, disaster with economy – what about those scandals?
20. LBJ – clear, aggressive agenda, but the country revolted against him by '68

21. Hayes – another honest man who carried himself well – country emerges from depression
22. Tyler – clear, aggressive agenda – Texas – but Congress hates him, as do Whigs
23. Van Buren – depression president, but courage to hold fast against war with Britain
24. B. Harrison – cold fish, but booming economy, and steady hand in White House
25. Nixon – ok, sure, Watergate – but brilliant if controversial foreign policy

26. GHW Bush – looks better by the year – clear agenda abroad, none at home
27. GW Bush – really too soon – methinks history will think him better, not great, but better
28. JFK – little record here, mixed bag on foreign affairs – Congress didn’t listen to him
29. Buchanan – peacemaking instincts in war-like time, swept aside by events – deserves better
30. Wilson – disastrous foreign policy, few successes at home – rejected by Congress, country

31. Ford – steady hand after Watergate, but nightmarish economy, yet more détente
32. Clinton – can’t recall much success – was the economy his claim to fame? What else?
33. Grant – little leadership from the top – economic collapse – “Grantism” byword for scandal
34. Taft – didn’t even want to be president – did his best, but not good enough – rising methinks
35. Andrew Johnson – but for Congress hating him and, well, the public too … he’d be higher

36. John Quincy Adams – totally unsuited for president – fuel for the fire of Jacksonian Democrats
37. Zachary Taylor – nearly a civil war on this watch – uncompromising – scandal in Cabinet
38. Hoover – smart guy, but economic policies made the depression worse
39. Madison – stalemate war, DC invaded and burned on his watch – need I say more?
40. Carter – economic collapse, Soviets on the march, the years of malaise – ugh

41. Garfield – 6 months is not enough -- probably deserves better – would have been a reformer
42. Harrison – one month and already Whigs in Congress were getting mad at him

A Ranking Rant

C-Span completed a historians’ poll of the presidents, rating different categories of leadership and then averaging them together for a total ranking score. No big surprises given this system of ranking or the historians involved – all the usual suspects finished high: Lincoln, Washington, FDR, Truman, etc. Let me complain about the system of ranking first, and then (given THIS system) rant about individual rankings.

Presidential ranking systems are notoriously subjective. Now I know all such judgments are subjective, but subjectivity is a range -- you try as much as possible to cut down on subjectivity, not give into it. If you ask historians to rank presidents’ “Moral Authority,” what are you basing it on? How are you defining morality and the authority that is exercising it? Likewise, when you ask historians to rank presidents’ “Vision/Setting an Agenda” you assume that an aggressive agenda is key to a successful presidency. And it assumes that great presidents are aggressive ones; ie., those who push Congress and the courts to legislate and are sometimes accused of creating an “imperial presidency.” “Performance within Context of Times” – what the hell does that mean? That allowing bribery by federal officials when bribery was more common is more acceptable than, say, today? These categories are measures of historians’ prejudice, personal visions of the presidential office, and partisan preferences. Historians leaning toward a “progressive” state will err toward progressive presidents; conservative historians lean in other directions. Summing up their opinions … what if anything does that tell us?

Several years ago, some libertarian historians tried to crack this silly ranking system (started by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. many moons ago) by fixing presidential ranks to statistics: level of federal debt, level of federal spending, percent decrease in spending over term of office, tax burden put on citizens, etc. Presidents who kept government small and reduced debt ranked very high, those who ballooned the bureaucracy and debt ranked low. Sure, you expect this from libertarians, but at least their rankings measured something concrete rather than the usual “how do you feel about this president?” list.

That said, what can we say about the impressionistic C-Span list? First the overall rankings:

How on God’s green earth does JFK get to #6? What’s the thrill here? Are we totally overrating the significance of the Cuban Missile Crisis (see Twenty Year Wound by Derek Leebaert)?

Woodrow Wilson at #9, ahead of Ronald Reagan and Andrew Jackson? Some domestic successes like the FED, but also brought us the income tax … maybe I’ve read too much Niall Ferguson to get cheery about American involvement in WW1. “Wlsonianism” is a pejorative in my book (note how he’s fallen from #6 in 2000 … are people seeing WW in GWB?)

Bill Clinton at #15 … proximity to the 1990s must be helping him … and the problems under GWB, because I don’t see it. Remind me again what he actually did…he rose from #21 in 2000.

McKinley should be higher than #16. Successful presidency and beloved at his death. Contemporary politics and discomfort with the label “imperialism” are holding him down.

Quincy Adams should be lower … as should James Madison … for God’s sake, the country’s capitol was burned down by an invader on his watch.

Cleveland and Ford should be higher … and putting Coolidge at #26, one below Jimmy Carter, is laugh out loud funny … does anyone actually remember 1979-1980?

Look at Nixon lurching higher at #27, my oh my, how times heals all wounds …

The most interesting and controversial are the bottom fifteen: obviously, presidents like Garfield and WH Harrison should be here, because they died before they could do much … Ben Harrison should be higher, as should Arthur, Hayes (he fell from #26 to #33 since 2000 – sheesh, what did he do wrong in the last nine years?!?), and Tyler (do historians hate TX?).

And the big five: Harding, Fillmore, Pierce, Andrew Johnson, and Buchanan … all resting comfortably at the bottom … the Rodney Dangerfields of the White House … I’m firmly with Robert Farrell and Robert K. Murray that Harding deserves FAR better …

Fillmore is here because of the Fugitive Slave Act (which is odd considering the category “Performance within Context of Times” – he was well within the mainstream of 1850-53) but should be higher – railroads and steamships did not have a bigger champion in DC than Millard … Pierce is also hurt by the slavery issue, unfairly I think – a spectacular four years? No. A competent and honest four years? Absolutely – Pierce’s Administration was perhaps the most honest, and incorruptible in American history – and considering the times, that’s no mean feat.

Andy Johnson withers in Abe’s shadow, but should get more credit and sympathy – a Jacksonian Democrat almost removed from office by Republicans because of political differences … did industrial America have a bigger critic in the White House?

And Old Buck … I’ve defended him earlier on these pages … it’s too easy to say “Buchanan should have done this and that,” because his times are not ours … and if you believe that Buchanan did not do enough to prevent the war, does that mean you forsake the “irrepressible conflict” idea, and that Buck could have solved all the nation’s many problems … that it really was a “repressible conflict?” Buchanan didn’t want a civil war and tried desperately to prevent one – do we count that against him? Remember the original title of Phil Klein's bio of Buchanan -- "Cursed are the Peacemakers."

Other anomalies:

Bill Clinton is #3 in “Economic Management” … the 1990s look kind of fat from this vantage point, don’t they? But Reagan finishes behind Wilson (recession begins in 1919), LBJ (budget buster leading to the inflationary 70s), Jefferson (Embargo), Monroe (Panic of 1819), and Truman (post war recession)? And Harding finishes behind Carter? Is it right that anyone finishes behind Carter on the economy?

“Administrative Skills” … really, how many historians are in a position to judge Franklin Pierce’s administrative skills? Puh-lease.

Well, after that rant, maybe I’ll post my own list of 43 … hey, it’s as subjective as the rest.

Barack as Buck

Hard on the heels of the Doc's rousing defense of Old Buck comes an essay at the Ashbrook Center site titled "Lincoln...or Buchanan?" Unlike the Doc, if he set up such a title, David Forte is not complimentary when he compares President Obama to President Buchanan.

Having lit the fuse, I will now dive into a convenient bunker.

Turns out Heath Schuler (D-NC) doesn't think much of the stimulus or the Pelosi-Reid team. He was one of the eleven who voted against the plan last week.

"Told you so," the Doc said, purring.

OK, Peter Hitchens is great and everything...sometimes. Like his brother, he says things that makes you believe he is occasionally taking a hit on a crack pipe while trying to make deadline. To wit, way down by the pic of Michelle Obama and Tony Blair:

By the way, I am struck by the thought that Barack could easily be The Last Black President, as well as the First.

Having done their multi-racial duty once, voters in the West’s most segregated society won’t feel under any pressure to do it again - and Hispanics are now a much more significant minority.

Huh-wuh? We're the most segregated? Dude, do you actually live in England? And if you're now in the south of France, have you been to a Paris suburb? And I am baffled about the Hispanic ref. Does that mean whitey will now vote Hispanic? Does that mean...ah, to hell with it.

Buck Off

Yes, the Elbert Smith biography is in the University of Kansas presidential series. Elegantly written, interpretively dull and unoriginal. Saying James Buchanan is a poor president is like saying "disco sucks." It's a historical cliche. You want to be original, say something intellectually stimulating, and [gasp] move our collective historical understanding ahead a few steps? Reconsider the Old Public Functionary and make a case that his presidency (1857-1861) had real achievements.

That he fought a bad economy entirely out of his control, in the face of a Congress disinterested in balanced budgets or adequate revenues.

That his position in the Lecompton Crisis was not a fanatical one but entirely reasonable -- see for example the work of David Meerse and, of course, Phil Klein's biography.

That his administration's aggressive campaign against the illegal slave trade was remarkably successful, in the midst of Southern radicals' calls to reopen that trade. What was that about "being in the pocket" of pro-slavery Southrons?

That the Covode Investigations (you really, really have to be a US history enthusiast to know THIS) were largely a politically motivated witch hunt by Republicans; and considering the Republican state corruption in the late 1850s and Simon Cameron's crookedness under Lincoln, to say nothing of war-profiteering, pointing fingers at JB is a real laugh.

That his actions during the secession crisis were understandable considering the options open to him -- Lincoln refused to give him any support and stayed mum as the country went to hell (remarkably like FDR sat on his hands while Hoover struggled in the winter of 1932-1933) -- Republicans refused to pass a Force Bill similar to that given to Andrew Jackson in 1832-1833, which puts Buck's reasoning (essentially secession is illegal but I can't do anything to stop it) in a new light -- Republicans refused to consider any compromise measures that might avoid war -- Republicans even believed that war would never happen, so hey, why compromise? We won, didn't we? (sound familiar, by the way?) -- and then Lincoln followed Buchanan's policy on Fort Sumter EXACTLY TO THE LETTER when he became president in March 1861.

Buchanan bad, Lincoln good...did you know that JFK was wonderful too? And so was FDR? And that Nixon was a crook?

[Yawn] ... where's my glass of wine?

Given the proclivities our our fearless leader, Dr. C., I feel obliged to link to a post on The Corner related to James Buchanan. A correspondent sends to John Derbyshire a quote from Elbert Smith's biography of Pennsylvania's President...and it makes me think, "damn, that Smith chap can write." Check this out:

"Depending upon the national problems, crises, or mood, a president may become immensely popular by leading a whirlwind of activity or by doing almost nothing. Americans have occasionally idolized the mediocre and rejected the wise, but surprisingly this has affected the national destiny very little. Fortunately, not every period in American history has needed a president whose personality, principles, and talents can change the direction of an entire society.

"The great challenge to the system by which Americans chose their high priest and political pilot is the matching of the man with his times. Obviously, every president is subject to the momentum or inertia and the direction of his immediate predecessors and to powerful social, economic, and psychological forces and trends he did not create and cannot change. On occasion, however, the particular beliefs, philosophy, temperament, strength of purpose, understanding of political processes and rhetorical talents of certain presidents have in fact determined which of the different alternative directions the United States would take."

Derbyshire writes, "I think my definition of a real U.S.-history enthusiast would be someone who's read a book about James Buchanan." Well, I know someone who thinks James Buchanan is sadly under-rated. See, you should be consulting us for your historical opinions, Derb.

And, since I am here turning the lights back on and looking in the fridge to see if there is beer left, what the hell has happened to the Obama administration in just two weeks?

Weren't they supposed to be the uber-competent ones? Didn't they have the Best Campaign Ever?

After two weeks, though, I refuse to draw any conclusions. I mean, I'm a historian not a blogger. But one thing is does make me realize is how vapid comments on "brilliant campaigns" are. If it was all about the brilliance of campaign organizations, then Bob Shrum wouldn't have been employed as many times as he has been. It seems to me that there is a large dose of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle in running any campaign...if you know where the object is, you don't know it's speed, and vice versa. Academics...and consultants, for obvious reasons, would like to pretend that campaigns are rational applications of social science.

But, gosh, it turns out they predict nothing. Do you think that might be because of the actions and contingencies of millions of voters? Dr. Potomac, I call on you.

Hmmm...does this make Jim Jones the most powerful man in Washington? And, B), what does the Secretary of State think?

Really, I am genuinely curious about this. Dr. Potomac and I must ask our friend Professor Headache what he thinks. It seems to be a pile of good-management fluff. But if someone can explain to me how the NSC staff actually works, I am prepared to call it an act of Transcendent Genius.