Evaluating Presidents Today

The highly subjective task of ranking US Presidents… is best left to historians.  But, there is no guarantee that an unbiased assessment will be produced by academics trained in the discipline of history.  Historians are human, subject to the same prejudices, passions, and notions that afflict those not considered ‘experts.’  The veil of ‘expertise’ shields historians after they produce the rankings, which often are published and accepted as fact.  The mistakes made in the assessments are readily identified:

  • Personal political beliefs… often leak into their judgement.  Presidents who share a particular political ideology with a historian tend to be ranked higher.  Historians often look past obvious shortcomings because of the political similarities.  Conversely, Presidents with differing ideologies are punished accordingly.   Liberal British historians ranked the Presidents and rated Franklin Roosevelt #1 and Jimmy Carter at #19
  • Connections… Presidential historians and/or commentators often have worked closely with their subjects.  The familiarity provides valuable insight, but it undoubtedly  clouds judgement. Arthur Schlesinger worked in the Kennedy White House.
  • Research (lack of)…  Many Presidential rankings are skewed by the ages or fields of expertise of the judges.   Younger judges closely scrutinize recent Presidents while relying on older analysis to rank those from the past.  Older historians tend to be more critical of recent examples while comparing them to the storied leadership of long ago.  Sienna College rated George W. Bush a failure in 2006…during his presidency. 

I want you....to rank me higher

Presidents should be rated according… to consistent and unbiased criteria.  To avoid the common errors in historical judgement, apply these simple tests:

  • Meeting the issues of the day… how well did the President address the most pertinent concerns of the electorate– not the sanitized, politically correct concerns of the scholar.
  • Crisis leadership… could the President provide the necessary leadership during national crises– war is the ultimate crisis, but not the only one to be considered.
  • Fulfilling the duties of the office… did the President enforce the law, defend the Constitution, supervise the military, and promote our diplomatic interests?

Care to reconsider my ranking?


Subjectivity should be influenced by scholarship… historians will play favorites, but such status must be earned.  The proof is in the proverbial pudding….go to the historical record and leave your political bias at the door.



Filed under Ephemera, News

2 responses to “Evaluating Presidents Today

  1. Donna Sheaffer

    Very interesting Good job as usual

  2. sdu754

    good article. Your dead on with the lack of research point. The first two Schlesinger polls put the presidents through Truman in thier respective places, and thier have been very little change in those presidents since.

    Historians tend to rank activists presidents highly, without any reguard to wether the activity was for the better or not. They also like presidents who “stregthend the office” as if it is good to grab more power. There is also a tendancy to rate presidents on things that they did while not in office.

    I only rate presidents on what they did in office and the effects of those actions. Top presidents are those that did the most positive good, bottom presidents did the most damage

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s