Replies

On the whole, this is a pretty good survey.

One major problem is how much the Presidency has changed since the 19th century. Today's Presidents have to deal with economic and foreign policy questions that are far more complicated than those of 19th century government leaders. On the other hand, we do remember our 18th and 19th century leaders as men of character and principle in a way that 20th century Presidents often weren't. So it's a tough call.

I'd take Madison and Jackson down a few pegs, though. Madison gets good ratings for his mind and character, and not so much for his record in office. He caved in to the War Hawks and produced the messy and unsuccessful War of 1812. Jackson, though a good President and a great influence on American history, had much less pressing problems to deal with than Reagan or Truman. Doubtless, he wins some points from libertarians (and also, strangely enough from liberal Democrats and those who want a strong Presidency), but he loses some for his racism and expansionism, and I think his ratings will drop a few ticks in the years to come.

But you can see the problem with such contests by looking at Jerry Ford. He came in at a very difficult time for the country and his party. Democrats were in control of Congress. What more could Ford have done at the time? The option of taking the country in a new direction (like TR) wasn't open to him, nor did his predecessor leave him an agenda to fulfill (as some say JFK did for LBJ). I suppose he could have pulled a Truman and pushed for a more assertive foreign policy or at least won reelection, sparing the country Carter, but realistically, it's hard to see how Ford could have been very much "better" or achieved more. This "below average" President was a success in ways that some on the higher rungs weren't.

Andrew Johnson has never been at the top of these lists, but it's amazing how he's shot to the bottom ranks in recent years. Within living memory, Johnson was praised for keeping the Presidency "strong" and not giving into Congress, but today he's reviled for his racial views and attitude towards reconstruction, while Grant has moved up a few notches. Nothing wrong with that. It was probably only fair, but I don't think historians have really thought that era through yet.

The old New Deal/Great Society equation of "strong Presidents" with "reform" and "progress" and "the people" has been broken as racial issues have taken precedence, and there may be more unravelling to come. Hoover and Coolidge have likewise risen from where the last generation's liberal historians put them. Can Harding be far behind?