Posted on 09/13/2005 6:11:52 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
How's He Doing? George W. Bush is "average," but far from ordinary. BY JAMES TARANTO Monday, September 12, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT Ask someone to describe the presidency of George W. Bush, and "average" is not a word you're likely to hear. Mr. Bush's detractors treat him with a level of vituperation unseen since the days of Franklin D. Roosevelt; some even blame him for bad weather. His admirers don't go so far as to credit him when the sun shines, but their affection for him is palpable. So it may come as a surprise that in a new survey of scholars ranking the presidents, Mr. Bush finishes almost exactly in the middle of the pack. He ranks No. 19 out of 40, and he rates 3.01 on a 5-point scale, just a hair's breadth above the middlemost possible figure. But this is no gentleman's C. Mr. Bush's rating is average because it is an average, of rankings given by 85 professors of history, politics, law and economics. Most such scholarly polls have a strong liberal bias, reflecting academia's far-left tilt. But this survey--conducted by James Lindgren of Northwestern University Law School for the Federalist Society and The Wall Street Journal--aimed at ideological balance. The scholars were chosen with an eye toward balancing liberals and conservatives, and Mr. Lindgren asked each participant about his political orientation, then adjusted the average to give Democratic- and Republican-leaning scholars equal weight. (To see the rankings, click here.) Mr. Bush's rating thus reflects the same sharp partisan divide that gave him a shade under 51% of the popular vote last year.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Hopefully Coolidge will get his due someday.
Quite possibly.
Both Buchanan and Harding should be ranked above Carter; arguably the worst President ever. Its hard to completely muck up to almost catastrophic levels both domestic and foreign policy simultaneously, but he accomplished it (during a time of "peace", no less (!)).
I sent the following to a democrat party hack - but it applies here also:
It is a fairly accurate poll, though I do not agree with all the results - - especially putting the president who all but destroyed the Constitutional Republic of the United States at #3!
I would have placed JFK higher for his emotional and moral leadership of America - like Reagan - he gave people hope and pride in America - something severly lacking in the presidents afterwards (except Reagan).
The rest of the rankings? Pretty close.
He will indeed! He does not care about this, otherwise he would try harder to please his constituency. He leads only by considering what is right, not popular. More importantly, he seeks wisdom from his creator, the ultimate judge.
Fortunately, there is a way to end socialism and the "professional" politicians' reign of terror. The Constitution can easily be restored in less than a decade. The plan is simple and once launched, easily implemented. At first glance some might consider it a bit daring, but in truth, it is essentially riskless. The risk is that it may prove to be difficult to launch. Freepers and FreeRepublic will be the site of its unveiling and it will be up to the members of FreeRepublic to get this plan launched after it has been unveiled for all to see and understand. We can restore the Constitution and WE the People can take our freedoms back.
A very important point!!
I remember a book that came out some years ago about the nations' ten worst presidents. (Bush 41 and Clinton were excluded from consideration, as the then-sitting president and his immediate successor.) The list was pretty much what you'd expect.
An added chapter at the end was pretty interesting - our two most overrated presidents. He named Kennedy, and also Jefferson (his logic being that Jefferson is most remembered for his contributions other than during his presidency.) Don't know that I agree on Jefferson, but Kennedy's assassination and the "mystique" built up around him made objective analysis very hard to come by until fairly recently.
I agree.
Yes. That and the Gadsden Purchase from Mexico for a southern railroad.
And if it weren't for Franklin Pierce, we wouldn't have gotten James Buchanan! What a deal!
Pierce and Buchanan usually fight for the bottom.
And William Henry Harrison gets a grade of "incomplete" for all time, I guess. No way at all to evaluate someone who caught pneumonia at the inauguration and died a month later . . .
LOL He should have been ranked above Clinton.
Billy Jeff is not going to be happy about this ranking regarding that "legacy".
Well, as with all things in life, success is key.
If he succeeds in fundamentally changing things in the Islamic world, he'll be worthy of greater esteem. So far, his leadership has prevented a second major terrorist attack on U.S. soil. I have no doubt that wouldn't be true if Gore had been president.
The new alliances that he has forged to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and roll up terrorists world wide are an untold story.
But there are so many domestic things that he has been doing, like the tax cut and other economic growth friendly things, the testing of school children, educating people about private accounts for retirement, promulgating the idea of an ownership society, and changing the dynamics of elections.
If you care about life, he's stopped the advance of the culture of death.
If you care about the Second Amendment, he's stopped the advance of gun control.
If you care about activist judges, he's stopped appointing them.
Don't have time to go on, but there has been a real sea change.
Many conservatives believe that it is the luminescence of their philosophy that has won the day in recent years. Most have little idea of how President Bush has humanized, popularized and breathed life into conservative ideals for consumption by average Americans. They float now on his leadership, just as they did on Reagan's leadership.
Don't fool yourself that Americans would vote this way and follow this path with just any ole conservative at the head of the ticket. Look how they voted after Reagan. Especially look how they voted in 1996.
The hardest lesson I had to learn in my life was that when Lincoln said, "You can fool some of the people all of the time," he had no idea just how vast the number of those people were.
Apart from sticking out his lower lip and hugging people, what did Clinton do that suggests leadership abilities?
The Presidents just before the Civil War had an extremely difficult situation to deal with it, and failed to cope with it. Jimmy Carter had much less difficult job to do, and was an even worse failure.
<<<
Apart from sticking out his lower lip and hugging people, what did Clinton do that suggests leadership abilities?
>>>>
I don't like Slick Willy personally, but here are some good decisions he made :
1) Welfare Reform ( admittedly, he fought it, but signed it later after Dick Morris told him it was a winner ).
2) Capital Gains tax reduction from 28% to 20%.
3) Property gains tax exemption for the first $500,000 of profits.
4) For conservative free traders, he steadfastly pushed NAFTA.
I don't know if interfering in Bosnia and Kosovo and eventually capturing Milosevic counts as equivalent to freeing Iraq from Saddam Hussein.
I agree with most of the rankings (particularly the bottom four)but McKinley and Kennedy ranked above Monroe and Madison...no way!
Milosevic gave up power in October 2000 (after losing an election) but didn't surrender to Serbian authorities and get sent to the Hague until 2001 (after Clinton left office).
Buchanan was a very poor president, but so were the series of presidents from Polk to him. The election of 1844 was a victory for Manifest Destiny and the Expansion of Slavery, first into Texas and then into the territories. It established that, instead of gradually and peacefully ending slavery, the preservation of slavery and subordination of freedom in our country would be the cornerstone position of the Democrats for the foreseeable future. The Whigs could not confront this pro-slavery position head-on, and just come out and say slavery was evil. Therefore, that party had to fall apart, and eventually be replaced by one that had the courage to address the issue.
With regard to Warren G. Harding, he was very much like Bill Clinton. He was a very personable fellow, charming, good natured, and prone to indulgence. He did not have the strength of moral character we should demand in our public leaders, and his administration was somewhat corrupt. On the other hand, he had good policies and our country prospered. The main difference between Harding and Clinton is that Clinton was impeached for his betrayal of the trust of the American people, while Harding had the good sense to die while in office and spare us the anguish of impeaching him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.