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.