Posted on 12/06/2006 6:46:51 AM PST by presidio9
In Sunday's Washington Post, a group of historians tried to predict what history will ultimately say about George W. Bush's presidency. One said that he is the worst president, ever; a second agreed that he was pretty bad, but still might redeem himself in his last two years; and another said that only time will tell, noting that our views of presidents often change with the perspective of time.
Historians have been playing this game for many years. It makes them feel relevant. However, the methodology of such efforts never gets above that of a simple popularity poll. A historian will survey a group of his friends, and they are asked to rank the presidents on whether they are great, near-great, average, below average or failures.
President Bush, left, speaks during a joint press conference as Indonesia's President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono looks on in Bogor Palace, outside of Jakarta, Indonesia, Monday, Nov. 20, 2006. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak) Obviously, this method is fraught with problems. For one thing, the historians chosen to participate are not picked randomly and therefore are not necessarily representative of all historians. Also, they have different specialties and may know a lot about some presidents but very little about others. The historians are overwhelmingly based at elite universities and thus tend to be much more liberal politically than the average American. And of course, they are well aware of previous rankings and seldom deviate from them except marginally.
The biggest problem I have always had with these presidential rankings, however, is that no one ever appears to use objective, measurable criteria for placing a president high or low on the list. The main criterion seems to be activity -- doing a lot while in office. This creates a strong bias in favor of presidents who served during times of crisis and against those who served during times of peace and prosperity.
To my mind, this sometimes gets the whole ranking system upside down. This is especially so when one considers that occasionally the crises that presidents have had to deal with were in fact their own fault. In effect, those who did their jobs well and avoided unnecessary wars, recessions or other avoidable woes get punished, while the screw-ups are sometimes rewarded for fixing their own mistakes.
Thus Calvin Coolidge almost always ranks low in the presidential popularity polls because he didn't do much of anything in office. But there wasn't much that needed doing. He kept the nation out of war, maintained prosperity and was not tempted to undertake a lot of unneeded "reforms" just to keep busy and raise his popularity rating among future historians. For my money, this makes Coolidge among our best presidents, not one of the worst.
At the other end of the scale, Franklin Roosevelt nearly always ranks high on the list because he did a lot of stuff and coped with major crises. But he caused some of the problems he is credited with fixing. In the view of economists, as opposed to historians, Roosevelt's economic policies mostly deepened and prolonged the Great Depression. Yet he gets credit for ending it simply because he stayed in office long enough for the depression to end on its own. If Roosevelt had left office after two terms, like every other president, perhaps Wendell Wilkie would instead be considered among our great presidents.
In other cases, presidents seem to benefit mainly from things they did outside of office. For example, Thomas Jefferson always ranks high on the list. But he really wasn't an outstanding president. His greatest accomplishment, writing the Declaration of Independence, took place a quarter of a century before he became president. Tellingly, Jefferson himself did not list his presidency as among his three greatest accomplishments.
I have always suspected that Woodrow Wilson benefits undeservedly from having been a professor of history at Princeton before becoming president. Historians are naturally biased in favor of one of their own. John F. Kennedy gets a similar boost from having employed one of the nation's best-known historians, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., as a close adviser.
I suggest that an objective criterion for future presidential rankings ought to be how many people their policies killed unnecessarily. On this basis, Wilson would be among the worst because, in my opinion, America had no vital interests at stake in World War I and never should have become involved in it. And Harry Truman probably didn't need to drop atomic bombs on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
To those who think this is a better way of ranking our presidents, one place to start is by going to this Webpage: www.opencrs.com/document/RL32492. There, you can download a document produced by the Congressional Research Service titled, "American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics." It reports the number of American military casualties from every war in history except the current one, which changes daily. Depending on how legitimate you believe a war was, you can do your own rankings of the presidents.
A lot of crap was thrown at Reagan when he was in office, too. Looking back, we realize that Reagan did the right thing. Hopefully, history will vindicate Bush as well. Time will tell.
It depends on what you value. Certainly, there are Presidents who are truly awful by any measure - Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan spring to mind.
Regards, Ivan
This whole effort to write HISTORY before it is really full is simply politically motivate crap from the left. They want to frame the debate over the person in question all the while making their guy look like a saint when he acted like satan.
Bush, unlike his predacessor, is a few things Clinton was not...principled, and a leader who did not ebb and flow. This does not mean he is perfect, or did all things right, it means he was different in approach and integrity.
The left can not deal with this so they will be out early to write Bushes history as mere deflection from accurately telling the story of the impeached president they love.
I believe President Truman thought he would have been impeached had he not dropped the bombs on Japan. But he also thought it was the right thing to do.
But Mr. Bartlett errs, I think, when he opines that Truman probably did not have to drop the nukes on Japan. There was just no way American intelligence could have known how Japan would have reacted to an invasion of the home islands. Most estimates of casualties that I have read over the years put American losses at more than a million men.
Dropping the bombs also kept the Soviet Union out of Japan.
George W. Bush will be remembered, through the fog of time, as a visionary who saw the Islamic extremists for what they were.
Harry Truman left office with the lowest poll numbers in history, yet today he's considered one of the greats.
And Harry's one of the few Democrat presidents I respect and admire.
A small minority of a very peaceful religion?
That is why I have always put Polk at the top of my list. He kept every campaign promise, including one not to run again. (He hoped to be drafted by his party and wouldn't have lived into a second term, but he didn't run.)
Kennedy has recently begun to show up in the "most overrated" category in these surveys, and they are ranking Clinton as about equal to Coolidge, in other words, as not important, leaving problems for his successor to deal with.
True historians do not attempt to judge until sufficient time has passed. Therefore, those who contributed to that Post farce cannot truly claim the mantle of historian.
BS Alarm right there! they overlook Carter, LBJ, and Buchanan to say President Bush is the worst? I myself would put him in the Top Ten.
George W. Bush will be remembered, through the fog of time, as a visionary who saw the Islamic extremists for what they were.
I agree with the first part of your statement, but not the second. But I think GWB may well be remembered as the president who saw more of the danger than his democrat counterparts, but who nonetheless, labored under a misconception that Islam was a "religion of peace". He will certainly not bee seen as a Chamberlain, but he is no Churchill, either.
Through in Harding as well...he was very bad.
The old story goes that after Hoover was nominated, Coolidge ordered a bottle of whiskey and locked himself in his hotel room. He also said of Hoover, "That man has given me a lot of unsolicited advice, all of it bad."
Regards, Ivan
the only thing those two have done that I don't agaree with is giving amnesty to illegal aliens. and encouraging more of them to come here.
I disagree. The business cycle turned sour after Harding took office, partially as a natural response to the end of World War I. Harding slashed taxes and what could have been a recession turned into a boom.
Regards, Ivan
Whenever anyone is sinking our ships, killing our people, and trying to get Mexico to go to war with us, I'd say we had "national interest" in WW I. And when, despite being bombed to hell and cut off by sea, the Japanese gave no indication whatsoever of surrendering prior to Aug. 6, I'd say Truman was EXACTLY right to bomb them, and to drop BOTH.
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.