On July 1st, just in time for the Independence Day holiday, the Siena Research Institute released their findings of an extensive survey of historians, political scientists, and barristers concerning the “rankings” of the American Presidents. (In the interest of full disclosure your Townhall columnist participated in the survey.) The survey participants were asked to assign numerical rankings to each of the forty-three Presidents in twenty specific categories, and to offer a final numerical evaluation of each of the chief executives. The institute then sifted all of the data and came up with the final rankings. The general public might greet such news with a shrug and ask “Why”? Admittedly, these rankings mean little in the concrete sense and will surely not change many minds. Each of the living ex-Presidents, however, acutely aware of their images and legacy, would prefer a higher ranking in a survey of this sort than a lower ranking. Primarily these rankings serve as fodder for the chattering classes and also supply the raw material for many delightful arguments.
Before we take a look at the rankings themselves, we need to establish a few basic precepts. It is a well-established fact that most academic historians and political scientists flock toward the left wing and are generally not reluctant to admit to being liberals. In fact, one portside historian, who shall remain nameless, has developed a lucrative side job by traveling the country and leading seminars entitled, “Is George W. Bush the Worst President in American History? This same historian emerged in 1998 as the leader of an informal cabal called the “Historians Against Impeachment” arguing, of course, that President Clinton’s misdeeds warranted no more than a scolding from the Congress. In all fairness, however, this particular historian has given Ronald Reagan a generally positive hearing in his latest work. All things considered, though, these survey rankings say more about the biases of the participants and the liberal slant of academia than they say about the Presidents they are ranking.
The Siena Research Survey’s Top Five Presidents are:
1. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
2. Theodore Roosevelt
3. Abraham Lincoln
4. George Washington
5. Thomas Jefferson
These top five rankings surprise in the sense that all other such surveys, namely the most recently conducted Wall Street Journal study, and the ones conducted by the renowned historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. universally ranked Washington and Lincoln at the top, with FDR coming in third. The fact that Roosevelt changed the nation immeasurably cannot be questioned, but the Siena survey ranking him in the top position overall smacks of hagiography. The study ranks him at the top of eighteen out of the twenty sub-categories, while giving him lesser marks only for personal integrity (16th) and intelligence (10th). It is also something of a surprise to see Theodore Roosevelt perched at the second spot, as he is usually ranked around fifth or sixth in these polls. TR undoubtedly ranks as the first modern president in consciously building an image and using the media to advance his goals and, apparently these elements of a twentieth century public relations/propaganda approach to governance impressed the survey participants.
The survey places Bill Clinton in 13th place, five spots ahead of Ronald Reagan. The respondents rated Clinton fairly highly on his background. They apparently overlooked his murky family circumstances, his draft evasion, and a governorship characterized by petty corruption. Clinton also graded highly on his presidential appointments. Yes, the man who gave the country Janet Reno, Jocelyn Elders, Webster Hubbell among others earned high marks for his appointments! Also, any discussion of Clinton, whether as governor or president, starts and ends with…girls, girls, and girls. The respondents gave Reagan his highest mark for “luck”, which fits in nicely with the liberal myth that the prosperity of the 1980s never really took place. In foreign policy accomplishments Reagan is rated 13th. You see, liberal historians and political scientists are not impressed with victory in the Cold War.
In short, the Sierra poll offers ample material for good-natured argument. However, surveys of this sort are handicapped by numerous circumstances. No historian can claim expertise on ALL of the Presidents. When a historian is out of his period of specialization his judgment on the major actors of another era might be historically informed, but are certainly not foolproof. In absence of real knowledge of a period or a person historians (and political scientists) are as likely to fall back on the stereotypes that abound in academia, just as they abound in the popular culture. Unfortunately, as the Sierra Survey shows, these stereotypes are uniformly left wing.