One thing that has always slightly puzzled me is the way various historians, academics, pollsters and all rank the Presidents. This is, of course, a game that's been going on formally in America for almost 60 years now, and informally for longer than that. The latest rankings are often used as fodder in our political skirmishes, but I have to wonder: are they really using valid criteria?

Seriously, consider that in the polls covered over at Wikipedia, Abraham Lincoln and FDR come out on top. Between them, they accounted for 85% (of the top of my head) of Americans killed in wars, and yet Bush is being blasted for 3k? This doesn't make sense. Does Bush need to get more Americans killed to boost his ranking?

Think about it for a moment. If you owned a business and decided to hire a manager, and come back four years later to evaluate his performance, what criteria will you use? Or if you're a University Board, what criteria do you use to evaluate a Dean?

So, the questions for debate are:

1} What criteria do you think should be used to evaluate a President's tenure?

2} Does your criteria give results that square with the polls listed at Wikipedia?

Now, a bonus question requiring some introspection:
3} Are your criteria arranged in order to achieve a pre-determined outcome vis a vis our current or immediately former President?

A: Loyalty to the Constitution
B: Ability to defend the country from aggressors
C: General level of civil/personal freedoms enjoyed by the population at the time

No. Both Roosevelts [particuarly FDR] would be middle of the pack or lower in my ranking. Lincoln would be out of the top three, as would FDR [America's first dictator]. Woodrow Wilson [the original neoconservative] would be middle of the road or lower. Jackson would be top ten as would be James Monroe. My top three would be: Washington, Jefferson, Madison.

No, my criteria is bipartisan. Democratic and Republican administrations are equally likely to be abject failures using my criteria

CP

1} What criteria do you think should be used to evaluate a President's tenure?

It’s entirely subjective what criteria can be applied to evaluate a president and how it is interpreted, as you so colorfully demonstrated with your “number of deaths” criterion. A president’s greatness is more than just a single, or even multiple categories. Every person will interpret criteria differently, thus giving a different view of the president’s “greatness”. As Hannibal Lecter said to Clarice “you think you can dissect me with this blunt little tool?” I'll take a stab at it and say:

*Loyalty and adherence to the Constitution

*Ethical and skillful political leadership with honesty, integrity, communication, vision, intelligence and respect for the American people (like a job performance review, with the American citizens as boss )

*Responsible foreign and domestic policies

*How the president faces and deals with the situational opportunities and obstacles that confront him


2} Does your criteria give results that square with the polls listed at Wikipedia?

Each set of criteria will give different results.

Now, a bonus question requiring some introspection:
3} Are your criteria arranged in order to achieve a pre-determined outcome vis a vis our current or immediately former President?

My criteria are arranged in no particular order.

The problem is any list by is omissions as well as its inclusions is subjective. Any list with under 50 questions is, by it's very nature, fraught with peril. To use CP's, while as good as it is for as short as it is, A. Hindsight is not 20/20 in this case. Some people would consider GW more loyal while others would consider Bill the better of the two. (Bill more so than GW more than likely.)
Now on B. George Washington barely beat the British. While GW could take on the British without breaking a sweat. However GW made it more likely that a terror attack would occur on US soil. Or maybe that was Bill. In either case Bill and Washington would appear more loyal to the constitution. However by limiting freedoms GW makes us safe. Does not. Does too.

I don't claim to be any better than CP at this (not to bad mouth CP who is obviously far more knowledgeable and qualified than I) but I think I would like to keep his three and add at least one more:

D) What was the economy like in the last half of his term in office and the first half of the next presidents.

I add this one this way because I don't think the Prez has a great deal of influence on the economy during the first half of his term. His direct influence is felt towards the second half and into the next Prez's term.

I also like Daffy Girls additions as well so to keep the list running:

CP:
A: Loyalty to the Constitution
B: Ability to defend the country from aggressors
C: General level of civil/personal freedoms enjoyed by the population at the time

DaffyGirl
D: Loyalty and adherence to the Constitution
E: Ethical and skillful political leadership with honesty, integrity, communication, vision, intelligence and respect for the American people (like a job performance review, with the American citizens as boss thumbsup.gif )
F: Responsible foreign and domestic policies
G: How the president faces and deals with the situational opportunities and obstacles that confront him

Syfir
H: What was the economy like in the last half of his term in office and the first half of the next presidents.

You're giving me WAYYYYY too much credit Syfir. I do agree with your additions and I think the list we've compiled between the three of us are pretty good qualifications. Still, I don't think there's a list we can make that won't open up the possibilities of partisan disagreement, but the one above is pretty good.

CP

And the LORD said "let there be light"

And the Democratic Party said "Will there be enough light be for the poor?"
And the Republican Party said "We need to make sure that we don't double tax the light people see when they die"
And the Liberatarian Party said "We want to be able to choose whether it is light or dark."
And the Green Party said "Is the lights power source environmentally friendly?"


The point being, even if we get a good list we'll still get disagreements on how to interpret the question for each President.

1} What criteria do you think should be used to evaluate a President's tenure?

1) Competance (You can have great ideals, but no competance to really have them come to fruition)
2) Net increase of freedom
3) Net increase of safety ( as long as it doesn't interfere with #2)
4) Fiscal discipline and behavior (not just talk)

Actual accomplishments vs myths are nice as well- one of the big "Reagan myths" for example- like he had anything to do with the "ending of the cold war"- what an ignorant cultural myth!

2} Does your criteria give results that square with the polls listed at Wikipedia?

Not really- some yes, some no. Historians, to some degree, can not be really considered "historical" to living presidents- or, presidents that are alive during the historians lifetime. I consider it a three way toss up between Nixon, Reagan and GW as the worst presidents in US history- though GW is probably the king and champeen of worst. GW has the "axis of evil" for his triumvirate of bad-

1) Horrible fiscal planning- or lack of it
2) Net uber-loss of freedom- the guy hates the constitution with a passion- it is obvious
3) Corruption that would make Harding and Grant blush.

Nixon was competant- but corrupt- so he ranks as third worst

Reagan was in the running for worst ever with GW- but GW is just SOOO very incompetant-

1) Reagan- massive deficit spending
2) Only Nixon's regime was more corrupt, at least with convictions- I wish a real investigation would start over GWs nastiness though
3) Net loss of freedom- he started confiscation laws as a "tool of law enforcement", I think Ronnie Raygun paid lip service to the constitution, but really hated the fact that it limited his power.
4) Giving power to the religious right, which is the main mechinism of a theocratic and autocratic regime- pretty much every right that our founding fathers conceptualized has come under attack by the right in this country.

Now, a bonus question requiring some introspection:
3} Are your criteria arranged in order to achieve a pre-determined outcome vis a vis our current or immediately former President?

I didn't like Clinton's "slick willy" type behavior- but far less egregious than anything Reagan or GW has done- so Clinton ranks high in competance and day to day running of the country- he never fought the anti-freedom forces of the right- so I rank him a "low acceptable".

Greatest presidents in modern history-post WW2- would be Eisenhower, LBJ (though he was corrupt), JFK (maybe, his term too short) - after that- they all sucked rotten eggs.

I think Loyalty to the Constitution is bit bit overrated when we consider to very important points.

1.) The constitution of today is a vastly different document from the 1789 version as Thurgood Marshall notes in my sig. These changes have almost uniformly been for the better and have moved us light-years ahead of where "loyalty" would have gotten us.

2.) If we're talking about not violating constitutional protections, I understand. Though I'd expand the concept to one of being "generally law-abiding" as certain provision of the lower law-code deserve great attention as well.

I think if we are to truly rank presidents the criteria must be subjective as it is at the values level that government becomes truly important. Otherwise we should just turn it over to the experts and call Democracy a wash.

So my criteria (in rough order of importance)

1) Commitment to universal human rights

2) Protection of the American people from security threats

3) Success at spearheading legislation which contributes to the quality of life of Americans

to which I'd second CR's all important competence.

I'll think of more later but without my #1 I don't think any president can rank above "slime" level.

hmmmph!
"vastly different"? Not really, not if you simply read the Amendments. The Constitution is not that different, the way the Federal gov't have determined to govern under it is vastly different.

Frankly, I'm somewhat surprised and disappointed how so many of you with the exception of Syfir, especially those on the sinister side of the aisle, have completely overlooked the economy. Also, virtually all of you have framed your responses in such a fashion that you'll rank a President based on his activism, not on the results.

Why is this the President's job? Here I'm talking about the Office of the President as defined and outlined by the Constitution.
Gotta take this one into account.
See my comments on activism.

Fair enough. Do we measure competence by whether or not the President accomplished what he set out to do, or by somebody else's yardstick?
Again, what's the yardstick? Freedom from oppression, freedom from offense, freedom from want, etc?
Sounds like this ties in with Turnea's #2
Would you base this on some theoretical objective standard, or on a "moving target" that accounts for different situations?

Interesting, because I've rarely hear anybody fault Jimmy Carter's Presidency on these grounds, yet he's widely considered in a dead heat for the worst post-war President with Nixon. Of course, Nixon is primarily faulted precisely on these grounds.
I'm not certain that this isn't so broad as to be useless. What constitutes "responsible?"
This is a good one, very good. Is the standard the President should be judged against in this regard one of "best reasonable course in the situation", or "best of all possible worlds, regardless of how unreasonable it may be?" This is a very important distinction, as Honest Abe demonstrates: He could have avoided the War Between the States/War of Secession/War of Northern Aggression aka the American Civil War.

I agree with this one 100%. At his inauguration, the President swears to uphold the Constitution. Too few take this oath seriously.



And I agree with all of these (although competence is a relative measure, often heavily influenced by partisanship). Freedom should always be placed above safety (perhaps we need a department of homeland freedom to keep the department of homeland security in check).



This one is good too, but is very subject to interpretation. Abraham Lincoln's emancipation proclamation did great things for human rights, but much blood was spilled in the process. GW is working to liberate Iraq, also at the cost of lives. Do both of these presidents receive high marks on the "commitment to universal human rights" scale?

The measures by which we SHOULD evaluate a President's tenure are perhaps different than the criteria that we ACTUALLY use to evaluate a President's tenure. I think the above mentioned items represent a fairly good, comprehensive list. But I don't think people actually use such objective measures when answering polls like this. They go with their gut, what they've learned in history, what they've seen or read or heard about a president, what party they belong to. Just like an actor in a movie, the thing that endears us to a past President is a memorable performance. The most memorable performances often come in the midst of great conflict, that's why war is a common factor propelling many presidents to the top of the list. Courage in a moment of crisis--the civil war, the assassination attempt on Reagan, etc.--is remembered longer than statistics.

The economy is also critical, because few will remember a President with fondness if he lost his job or life savings during that President's tenure. President's have gotten very good over the years at taking credit for economic windfalls, though I think the President has far less influence on the economy than most give him credit for. Congress, the Federal Reserve Board, and circumstance play a pretty big part. I don't know much about Hoover, but I don't think the onset of the depression endeared him to many U.S. citizens.



This isn't a debate about the merits & weaknesses of the Constitution, but turnea's Thurgood Marshall quote illustrates one of the problems with the thinking of politicians today. Yes, the Constitution is a vastly different document from the 1789 version--not because the words alone have changed (in the form of amendments), but because society now reads and interprets the document so differently from its original intent. Unlike turnea, however, I don't think this is a good thing -- in fact, our modernized interpretation (and sometimes complete ignoring) of this document is the very worst thing that can happen to our republic. True, 200+ years and technological advances have changed our society in many ways, but the principles of freedom remain the same as when our founding fathers signed that document in the late summer of 1787.

Thomas Jefferson said "We might as well require a man to wear still the same coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." That's why the Constitution can be changed. But it was never meant to be tossed aside like garbage in the minds of men, or subjected to the "interpretation du jour" to justify the revoking of rights granted to states and to the people.

I prefer the words of Justice Antonin Scalia to those of Thurgood Marshall:









More Information

Don't forget Woodrow Wilson, who presided over the deaths of 800,000 Americans. Of course, most of those were from Spanish Influenza, but then you don't seem to have put any more analysis into your point above than 'dead during time in office'. I mean do you really think the number 3000 dead is the some or even primary reason that Bush is regarded as one of the least sucessful presidents in US history?




Actually, thats a good way of putting it. The standard criteria begin with: realism and value of plans during time in office and sucess and impact of implementation of these plans. I think those would be, right there, why the current president is so universally derided.

Most people disagree with his plans and did not think them appropriate or reasonable, and even those who DID like them are frustrated by the way he completely failed in his plans at every stage. By every measureable standard the US is less safe, more isolated, poorer, weaker, has more enemies and has fewer friends than before he took office.

Now I know that this isn't (nominally) a thread about Bush, but when you pretend (as you did above) that current staggering unpopularity of the sitting president, even among his own party, is somehow a silly trick of numbers, you have to expect a response.



With regards to the economy, the president certainly has an impact on the economy, but a huge amount of the success and/or failure of the economy transpires entirely out of the hands of the president. Thus while a leader can earn some kudos or damnation due to the measure of economic growth of weakness of the country, it cannot be trusted as a barometer of his policies. Examples of this are Clinton, whose leadership and policies were generally good for the economy, but whose sucesses have been magnified by the state of the world economy at the time.


Equally, loyalty to the constitution is a very difficult critria to measure, as there are about a hundred different opinions and interpretations regarding the constitution. Some feel the sitting president has grossly violated privacy rights, others feel this is not he case. Some feel 'upholding' the second amendment only means the second half of the second amendment, while others out too much emphasis on 'well-regulated'. Ask 10 constitutional experts about how to 'uphold' a clause and you will get 8 different answers.


Protecting America from security thrreats is probably the only easy and non-conytrovercial criteria, that is one of the primary roles of the leader of ANY country. It is also one of the worst failures of the sitting president.


I also think commitment to universal human rights, with laudable and praise-worthy, is not really a top criteria for judging the president. Perhaps ensuring universal Human rights within the United States would be more expected...





Well that is for each person to answer, of course. But (and I'm not being glib here) it would be very difficult for me to envision ANY criteria or standards, even biased ones, that portray the sitting president as anything less than a total failure. If somebody can, I would be very interested to see it.

This goes right back to John Locke and the fundamental principles of "Just Government" and beyond.

The government and the Constitution are merely a means to an end. The minute we think they are an end to themselves we have entirely missed the point.

A president on my rating system is a person of principle, not simply paper.


Since when are we throwing "framer's intent" out the window?

If we consider their intent as our origin the divergence is clear and enormous. It's nice to see such candor from a Supreme Court justice, which is why I made it my sig this Black History Month.

Means to an end friends, never forget.

Edited to respond to a point I overlooked in Vermillion's post.

I would argue that the President has a responsibility both to the American people, and all peoples are policies affect. The Philippine War didn't harm America so much, it was a true crime against the Filipinos and a President must be held to account for such actions.

Sure I did. Perhaps you'd like to include the 450,000 Americans dead during Clinton's term on our highways, or the 15,000 murders, or the cancer dead, or the AIDS dead (hmmm, that one is a communicable disease), or the...etc, etc. Your example of the Spanish Influenza is a great one of Daffygrl's "situations and obstacles," and it has to be understood in light of the available resources (information, technology, etc).

The fact that you're discussing Bush makes it clear that its not. Bush is regarded "as one of the least successful presidents" because of two reasons: his name and his party. From the very beginning of his Presidency, from even before he was sworn in, what has been termed "Bush Derangement Syndrome" has corrupted our political discourse. Which is why I asked question #3. The same dynamic of highly partisan bias is often at work regarding Clinton, Reagan, and Nixon, less so with Bush sr, Carter and Ford.

And when that task contradicts the explicitly written words of the Constitution, how then do we weight it? Do we take Turnea's approach, which is that "universal human rights" trumps everything? If so, then Turnea's assessment of all our Presidents is likely correct.

Perhaps you lack vision?
Let's see. The economy. People still want to come to America, not leave. (Still haven't seen Alec Baldwin's Canadian citizenship ceremony). We were attacked at home, no organized attacks here have occurred since. (FDR didn't manage that until 1943). American citizens going about their daily business haven't been interned. Congressional opponents haven't been tossed out of the country.

My guess is that history will judge Bush as a good President. Not a great one. His inability to manage the vicious partisanship will go down as his greatest fault. Whether or not it is manageable is another question entirely. He also has almost two years left, and the "verdict" of history will take a lot longer too come in.


If violating the Constitution is acceptable as a means to an end, then what's the point of having the Constitution? Our first 15 President's upheld slavery, as a "means to an end." I think that pretty well illustrates the perils of such thinking.

The ends justifies the means...

Uh... ok. Thank you for repeating my point, and adding more evidence to support it. I'm not sure why you are making fun of yourself here, perhaps its wryful self-deprication.



OK, if you actually believe that, if you genuinely believe that there is nothing he has done in the last six years which might lead people to determine, based on his actions and their consequences, that he is one of the worst president's in modern history, then I can't even begin to have a debate about it. We don't even have a common frame of reference.




Speaking of lacking vision... I directly addressed the economy in my last post. I see no reason to repeat myself if you are ust going to ignore points previously made.



-Well actually, since you brought up Canada, the US has been a net emmigrant nation to canada for 4 years now. So so much for that point.
-No attacks except 9/11, which occurred on Bush Jr's watch. Oh, and the Anthrax attacks. And the Midwest pipe bombings. Well, lets just say no attacks, on American soil, by Al qaida, except the one. yes, thats something Bush can surely be proud of.
-Well, not MANY Americamns have been interned anyways, though they better not make any foreign calls cause their phone conversations can be recorded without warrant.
-That last one... is that a Joke? Bush is a good leader because he has not sunk to the depths of Khruschev?

One thing I have been baffled by during the last 6 years is not the President (thats baffling enough) but the culture of defeatism among the republicans. They may have hed the presidency, the House, and the Senate, but to hear them talk the 'partisanship' of the Democrats held them back somehow.

Name a single peice of domestic non-terror oriented legislation Bush has passed other than the tax cut for the wealthy. Off the top of your head. No?




That is baffling to me. Based on your list of 'accomplishments' above, I can hardly believe even you believe this. But as you say, current opinions are hardly the judgement of history, so who knows. Personally, when the full global implications of the utter disaster Bush jr has made out of the Middle East become clearer, I suspect history will judge him far more harshly than even his harshest critics today. In six years he destabilised the Middle east, opened the door to Iranian growth, poured two-thirds of a trillion dollars down a hole, alientated all of America's allies, caused the death and injury of tens of thousands of Americans, willfully sidelined the war on terror allowed Al Qaida to grow stronger than ever before, increased both the size and the power of the federal government more than any president, failed to catch Bin laden, failed to secure the US borders, and failed to deal with ANY of the critical pressing domestic issues of the day: social security, medicare, and so on. Under his watch North Korea became a nuclear power, Iran is close to being one, Iraq has become a violent sectarian bloodbath, Afghanistan is regressing to the same, and the list goes on.


Frankly, if you genuinely think Bush has been a good leader, then I have a question to ask you:
3} Are your criteria arranged in order to achieve a pre-determined outcome vis a vis our current or immediately former President?

Again.. this is missing the point.

The "ends" are human rights. The "inalienable rights" we are all endowed with. Efforts to meet these ends may on occasion trump legal authority as a motive.

The government is simply a system we use to ensure the protection of these rights.

Human rights are the very heart of just government, any successful president must act accordingly.

1} What criteria do you think should be used to evaluate a President's tenure?
A President's greatness should be determined by how much he improved the nation during his tenure. Did he leave the nation better than when he started office? What conflicts did he face? What controversies did he endure? Did he have compassion?
Improvement of Nation
Struggles Nation faced
Controversies and there effect on the nation
Inspirational abilities

2} Does your criteria give results that square with the polls listed at Wikipedia?
No, I don't think I would rank the President in the normal order. I put George Washington much further down the list. George Washington was a great American hero, as a President, he was Alexander Hamilton's puppet, and Hamilton was a bastard, literally and figuratively. I would rank Teddy Roosevelt as the greatest President ever. We should have a top ten list, and a bottom ten list. Because really, after awhile they all seem like the same guy.

3} Are your criteria arranged in order to achieve a pre-determined outcome vis a vis our current or immediately former President?No, Clinton's legacy to me is NAFTA and the welfare cuts. The excellent economy was the explosion of the Internet, which was a project started by Richard Nixon. George W. Bush's legacy will be that he is far too ambitious for his mental capacity. He's just dumb and stubborn. He is also the perfect example of why we need to get rid of term limits. If we have a guy in office that doesn't care anymore then we as a nation are going to see people like Bush doing what they are doing.

1} What criteria do you think should be used to evaluate a President's tenure?

I would tend to go along with the way that most of the various polls listed by this article went; that is, I would try to look at it from the viewpoint of history, and in as scholarly a fashion as possible. Of the polls listed, this one seems to be the "fairest," in my view.



One's personal ideology tends to sway the way one feels about the Presidents, of course, as another survey shows.



It's interesting to note that public opinion surveys, as opposed to surveys of scholars, seem to be much more partisan, and lack the same sense of history. Here's an example, when folks were asked to name the greatest President of all time.



I mean, let's be realistic here; Clinton or Bush ahead of Washington?

But I'm dancing around the question, so here goes. I would first ask if the President faced very difficult challenges. Obviously Washington, Lincoln, and FDR get brownie points for this. I would then ask if the President was effective in meeting those challenges. I would also ask if the President was otherwise effective in changing the political culture of the nation. This gives extra points to folks like Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. One can take into consideration other factors such as intellectual capacity (Jefferson getting a nod here) and personal integrity (Jimmy Carter, perhaps) and even charisma (JFK or Reagan.)

2} Does your criteria give results that square with the polls listed at Wikipedia?

I think so. The usual suspects lead the list; in no particular order, Washington, Lincoln (despite some very questionable actions taken during the Late Unpleasantness), and FDR. After that, people like Jefferson and Teddy R. and, as much as it sticks in my craw, Ronald Reagan. (No doubt naming FDR sticks in the craw of some of my conservative colleagues.) Somewhere in there would be Wilson (despite being a blatant racist) and Truman.

Now, a bonus question requiring some introspection:
3} Are your criteria arranged in order to achieve a pre-determined outcome vis a vis our current or immediately former President?

I don't think so, since I am not a fan at all of the past two administrations.