Rating the Presidents Washington to Clinton

7/28/2019 Rating the Presidents Washington to Clinton

1/13

Rating the Presidents: Washington to ClintonAuthor(s): Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.Source: Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 112, No. 2 (Summer, 1997), pp. 179-190Published by: The Academy of Political ScienceStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2657937

Accessed: 03/03/2010 19:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aps.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Academy of Political Science is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Political Science Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2657937?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=apshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=apshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2657937?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/13

Rating he Presidents:Washingtono Clinton

ARTHUR M. SCHLESINGER, JR.My father, the historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, started it all nearlyhalf a century ago. In 1948 he asked fifty-five leading historians how they ratedthe American presidents. The results, published in Life magazine just beforeHarry Trumanconfounded the prophets and won reelection, excited much interestand also much controversy. In 1962 the New York Times Magazine prevailedupon my father to repeat the poll. Again much interest and much controversy.In 1996 the New YorkTimes Magazine asked a less eminent historian, ArthurM. Schlesinger, Jr., to replicate his father's poll. The results appeared in theissue of 15 December 1996 under the title "The Ultimate Approval Rating."Space limitations required the omission of much historical and methodologicalcommentary. With the kind permission of the New York Times Magazine, hereis the more complete report.The Schlesinger polls asked historians to place each president (omittingWil-liam Henry Harrison and James A. Garfield because they died so soon aftertaking office) in one of five categories: Great, Near Great, Average, BelowAverage, and Failure.1 The standard was not lifetime achievement but perfor-mance in the White House. As to how presidential performancewas to bejudged,

the scholars were left to decide for themselves. It was assumed that historianswould recognize greatness or failure whenthey sawit, as JusticePotter Stewartonce proposed to recognize pornography.Presidents might well have wondered (and some did): who are historiansto arrogate to themselves the judging of presidential performance? Dwight D.

I Mrs. LeonardLyons, afterreadingthe New YorkTimesMagazine article, wrote the author,notwithout ustice: "Somecategoriesother thanyourscome to mind:Dope, Lucky Stiff, Bumbler,etc. -which makes me realize how resilient Americansare if they can survive such as these."ARTHUR M. SCHLESINGER,JR. recentlyretired as Schweitzer Professorin the Humanitiesat theCity Universityof New YorkGraduateCenter. He has writtenbooks on thepresidentialadministrationsof AndrewJackson,FranklinD. Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedyas well as an overall analysiscalledTheImperial Presidency. He also served as special assistant to President Kennedy.Political Science Quarterly Volume 112 Number 2 1997 179


3/13

180 | POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY

Eisenhower, who did badly in the Schlesinger 1962 poll, accused the scholarsof equating"an ndividual'sstrengthof dedicationwith oratoricalbombast; deter-mination, with public repetition of a catchy phrase; achievement, with the exag-gerated use of the vertical pronoun."2"Historywill treatme fairly," said RichardM. Nixon, drawing an odd distinction. "Historians probably won't. They aremostly on the left."3Other presidents felt that people who had never been president could notpossibly appreciatewhatpresidents go through."Trialsandencouragementcometo each president,"wrote Calvin Coolidge in an unwonted lyrical outburst. "Itis impossible to explain them. Even afterpassing throughthe presidential office,it still remains a great mystery. . . . Like the glory of a morning sunrise, it canonly be experienced-it cannot be told."4John F. Kennedy too came to doubt whether the quality of the presidentialexperience could be understood by those who had not shared it. My father senthis 1962 questionnaireto the historian who had writtenProfiles in Courage andA Nation of Immigrants. Kennedy started to fill it out; then changed his mind."Ayear ago," he wrote my father, "Iwould have respondedwith confidence . . .but now I am not so sure. After being in the office for a year, I feel that a gooddeal more study is requiredto make my judgment sufficiently informed. Thereis a tendency to mark the obvious names. I would like to subject those not sowell known to a long scrutiny after I have left this office."He said to me later, "How the hell can you tell? Only the president himselfcan know what his real pressures and real alternatives are. If you don't knowthat, how can you judge performance?"Some of his greatest predecessors, hewent on, were given credit for doing things when they could have done nothingelse; only detailed inquiry could disclose what difference a president made byhis individual contribution.War, he observed, made it easier for a president toachieve greatness. But would Abraham Lincoln have been judged so great apresident if he had had to face the almost insoluble problem of Reconstruction?

For all his skepticism, Kennedy read the results of my father's 1962 pollwith fascination. He was greatly pleased that Truman was voted a Near Great,norwas he displeasedthat Eisenhower came in twenty-second, near thebottomofthe Averages. Later, jokingly or half-jokingly, he blamed Eisenhower'svigorousentry into the 1962 congressional elections on the historians. "It'sall your father'spoll," he said. "Eisenhower has been going along for years, basking in the glowof applausehe has always had. Then he saw thatpoll and realized how he stoodbefore the cold eye of history-way below Truman;even below Hoover. Nowhe's mad to save his reputation."52 Dwight D. Eisenhower to James C. Hagerty, 18 October 1966 in R. Gordon Hoxie, CommandDecision and the Presidency (New York: Reader'sDigest Press, 1977), 245.3 RichardM. Nixon onMeetthePress, 10April 1988 (responding o a questionbyJohnChancellor).4 Calvin Coolidge, Autobiography New York: CosmopolitanBook Corp., 1929), 234, 194.5 The Kennedyquotes are from Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., A ThousandDays: John F. Kennedyin the WhiteHouse (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1965), 674-675.


4/13

RATING THE PRESIDENTS | 181

Kennedy was surprised that the historians voted Woodrow Wilson a Great,placing him number four after Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, andFranklin D. Roosevelt, while ranking Andrew Jackson only number six and aNear Great. Though a fine speaker and writer, Wilson, in Kennedy's view, hadfailed in a number of cherished objectives. Why did professors admire him somuch? (I suggested that he was, after all, the only professor to make the WhiteHouse.)Kennedywas surprisedtoo by Theodore Roosevelt's ranking number sevenand a Near Great; TR had really got very little significant legislation throughCongress. Why should Wilson and TR rate ahead of achievers like James K.Polk (number eight) or Truman (number nine)? For Kennedy, the measure ofpresidential success was evidently concrete accomplishment. Presidents whoraised the consciousness of the nation without achieving their specific objectivesought, he seemed to think, to rate below those, like Polk and Truman, whoachieved their objectives even if they did little to inspire or illuminate the nation.Ironically, historians feel that Kennedy himself comes off better when measuredby the TR-Wilson ratherthan by the Polk-Truman standard.There is force in the argument that only presidentscan really understandthepresidency. But by the Coolidge-Kennedy doctrine only presidents would havethe qualificationsto ratepresidents. Alas, few presidentshave claimed thatright.Indeed, the only presidential list I know comes, not surprisingly, from that plain-speaking history buff Harry Truman.In 1953 he named his eight best Presidentsin chronological order, Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Polk, Lincoln, GroverCleveland, Wilson, and FDR-and his eight worst-Zachary Taylor, FranklinPierce, JamesBuchanan, Ulysses S. Grant, Benjamin Harrison,Warren G. Hard-ing, Coolidge, and Eisenhower.6Meanwhile, scholars continued to play the rating game. Some felt thatratingson the Schlesingerbasis were unduly impressionistic andsubjective. Quantitativehistory was coming into vogue. Also political scientists, with their faith in typolo-gies andmodels, were joining the fun. Would not the results be more "scientific"if presidents were given numerical scores against stated criteria? Then feed thefigures into the computer.So furtherpolls were undertaken nthe 1970s and 1980s withmorepretentiousmethodologies. Some poll takers used only a few yardsticks: success in attainingobjectives, for example; the relationship of objectives to the general welfare;the qualityof political leadership; personal trustworthinessand integrity; impacton history. Others multiplied yardsticks. Thomas A. Bailey of Stanford, whoregarded the Schlesinger polls as a Harvard-easternelitist-Democratic plot, cameup with no less than forty-three.Butthe yardstickswere mostly too general to warrantmathematicalprecisionor to escape subjective judgment. Their proliferation only produced lengthy and

6 Harry S. Truman, "TheEight Best Presidents, the Eight Worst Presidents andWhy," Parade, 3April 1988.


5/13


intimidating questionnaires. And, to judge by the results, the refinementof stan-dards made little difference. However simple or complex the method, the finalratings turnedout to be much the same. Even Bailey's own rankings were remark-ably similar to the Schlesinger polls.There have been nine Greats and Near Greats in nearly all the scholarlyreckonings. Lincoln, Washington and F. D. Roosevelt are always at the top,followed always, thoughin varying order, by Jefferson, Jackson, Polk, TheodoreRoosevelt, Wilson, and Truman.Occasionally JohnAdams, Cleveland, and Ei-senhower join the top nine. The Failures have always been Grant and Harding,with Buchanan, Pierce, Fillmore, Taylor, and Coolidge always near the bottom.The scholars' lists not seldom provoke popular as well as presidential indigna-tion. For a long time FDR's top standing enraged many who had opposed hisNew Deal. "To rankhim with Lincoln andWashington,"the Detroit editor Mal-colm Bingay wrote in 1948 about the first Schlesinger poll, "hits me as historicalsacrilege."7As late as 1982, Robert K. Murrayof Penn State, a leading scholarofpresidential ratings, polled 846 historians.When they placed Franklin Rooseveltslightly aheadof George Washington (though still behind Lincoln), Murraywasdeluged with angry letters, "many being from the fanatic right," he wrote me,"whose fulminations know no bounds."8People today forget that Roosevelt wasthe most hated as well as the best loved president of the twentieth century. Butnow that even Newt Gingrich pronounces FDR the greatest president of thecentury, conservatives accept FDR at the top with stoic calm.The choice of best and worstpresidentshas remainedrelatively stable throughthe years. There is much more fluctuationin between. Some presidents particu-larly J. Q. Adams, Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and Cleveland-have declinedin the later polls, but the most striking change has been the steady rise of Eisen-hower from twenty-second place in the Schlesinger 1962 poll to twelfth in DavidPorter's 1981 poll, to eleventh in the poll taken by Robert Murray and TimBlessing in 1982, to ninth in Steve Neal's Chicago Tribunepoll the same yearand ninth again in Neal's Chicago Sun-Timespoll in 1996. Had he lived longenough, Eisenhower might have raged less over the verdicts of scholars.Several factors account for Eisenhower's ascent. The opening of his papersshowed that the mask of genial affability Ike wore in the White House concealedan astute, crafty, confident, and purposeful leader. As Nixon typically put it,Eisenhower was "afarmore complex and devious man thanmost people realized,and in the best sense of those words."9Moreover, the FDR model and the yard-sticks in earlier polls contained a bias in favor of an activist presidency. AfterVietnam andWatergateshowed thatpresidentialactivism could go too far, Eisen-hower appeared n a betterlight. Thepeace andharmony sentimentallyrecollected

7 Malcolm Bingay, "Chides Historian for Hasty Appraisal of FDR As 'Great,"'Akron Beacon-Journal, 4 November 1948.

8 Robert K. Murrayto ArthurSchlesinger, Jr., 15 March 1983.9 RichardM. Nixon, Six Crises(GardenCity,NY: Doubleday, 1962; Warnerpaperback,1979), 189.


6/13


from Ozzie-and-Harriet days shone well against the turbulence of the 1960s and1970s. The more his successors got into trouble, the better Eisenhower looked.Presidents sometimes do more for the reputationsof their predecessors thantheydo for their own.Over the years it has been periodically suggested thatI replicate my father'spolls. But the difficulty of making overall judgmentsabout some of thepresidentssince Eisenhower stumpedme - in thecases of Kennedy and Gerald Ford, becauseof the brevity of their time in office; in the cases of Lyndon Johnson, Nixon,and George Bush, because their foreign and domestic records are so discordant.Scholars, for example, might be inclined to rateJohnson higher in domestic thanin foreign affairs and do the reverse for Nixon and Bush. And the most recentpresidents always seem morecontroversial and harder o classify. Still thepassageof time permitsappraisals o crystallize. So in 1996 the New YorkTimesMagazinetook a new poll.The question of disjunction still nags. "I find three cases," Walter DeanBurnham said, "which one could describe as having dichotomous or schizoidprofiles. On some very important dimensions, both Wilson and L. B. Johnsonwere outright failures in my view; while on others they rankvery high indeed.Similarly with Nixon." Alan Brinkley said: "Thereare presidents who could beconsidered both failures and great or near great (for example, Wilson, Johnson,Nixon)." James MacGregor Burns observed of Nixon, "How can one evaluatesuch an idiosyncratic president, so brilliant and so morally lacking? . . . so Iguess to average out he would be average."Another source of confusion comes from the reluctance of some respondentsto confine their judgments to White House performance. Several presidents-James Madison, J. Q. Adams, Grant,HerbertHoover, Jimmy Carter-had pre-or post-presidentialcareers of more distinction than their presidencies; and thisevidently affected some of the ratings.Yet the 1996 poll still shows a high degree of continuing scholarlyconsensus.In nearly all the polls since 1948, the same nine men top the list. Lincoln, witha unanimous Greatvote, comes in first in 1996. WashingtonandFDR, as usual,are next; each had one Near Great vote. The big three are followed, as usual,by the Near Greats-Jefferson, Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson, Truman,andPolk. Steve Neal's 1996 poll, with five yardsticks (politicalleadership,foreignpolicy, domestic policy, character, impacton history)andfifty-eight respondents,came up with the same nine men, plus Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan, whoedged out Polk.Polk's high ranking is always a puzzle for laymen. "Of all our array ofpresidents,"James Thurberonce imprudentlywrote, "therewas none less memo-rable than James K. Polk."l0But Polk at 49 was the youngest man up to thattime, and the only Speaker of the House of Representativesever, to make theWhite House. He specified his objectives early on - to reduce the tariff, establish

10 James Thurber, Let YourMindAlone! (New York: Harper, 1937), 141.


7/13


the independent reasurysystem, settletheOregon boundaryquestion,andacquireCalifornia and worked efficiently and relentlessly to achieve them. His objec-tives have been criticized but not his ability. Besides, he kept the most completeof presidential diaries, which endears him to scholars.The next batch, the High Averages, are led in the 1996 Schlesinger poll byEisenhower, whose one Great vote and ten Near Greats are outweighed by ahost of Averages. The same fate befalls John Adams with ten Near Greats andKennedy with nine. Lyndon Johnson receives fifteen Near Greats from scholarswho seem to have forgotten about Vietnam, but low ratings and two Failuresawarded by those who remember Vietnambringhis score down below Kennedy's.Monroe and McKinley complete the High Averages.Most presidents fall into the Average class. Recent presidents, too close forhistorical perspective, are likely to rise or fall in polls to come. Carter has oneNear Great and two Failures, with the rest of his votes in between. Some admirehis accomplishment in putting humanrightson the world's agenda; others deplorehis political ineptitude and the absence of any clear direction in his handling ofdomestic affairs.Reagan, on the other hand, has seven Near Great votes, including somefrom liberal scholars impressed by his success in restoring the prestige of thepresidency, in negotiating the last phases of the cold war, and in imposing hispriorities on the country. But he also receives nine Below Averages and fourFailures from those who consider his priorities-his attack on government as theroot of all evil and his tax reductions that increased disparitiesbetween rich andpoor while tripling the national debt-a disaster for the republic.His score averages out a shade below that of George Bush, who receives noNear Greats but more Averages than Reagan and only one Failure. Bush's skillin putting together the coalition that won the Gulf War outweighs for many hisseeming lack of purpose in domestic policy. Some respondents thoughtit prema-ture to judge Clinton, but two vote him Near Great and two more a Failure, andhe ends up Average.Some exception has been taken to Reagan's rating as number twenty-five,placing him between Bush and Arthur and below Clinton. According to theMarch-April1997Policy Review, this "lowassessment"was "themost astonishingpart of Schlesinger's poll." The Reagan rating, the magazine continued, "invitessuspicion that participantswere selected as much for the conclusions they werelikely to reach as for their scholarly credentials."" Policy Review then pickedits own panel, includingWilliam F. Buckley, Jr., Henry Kissinger, JeaneKirkpat-rick, George H. Nash, JoshuaMuravchik,Michael Barone, and others-a groupthat invites the same suspicion roused in Policy Review by my panel-and theyjoined seven of my respondents in putting Reagan in the Near Great category.As for the suggestionof bias in the selection of my thirty-two, William J. Ridings,

" Alvin S. Felzenberg, "'ThereYou Go Again': Liberal Historiansand the New YorkTimes DenyRonald Reagan His Due," Policy Review, March-April 1997.


8/13


Jr., and Stuart B. McIver polled seven hundred and nineteen historians andpolitical scientists for their 1997 book Rating the Presidents, published somemonths after the New YorkTimesMagazine poll. The Ridings-McIver poll rankedReagan even lower, number twenty-six, placing him between Hayes and Fordand below both Bush and Clinton.The list of Failures shows a slight shift from past polls. Harding and Grantare, as usual, favoriteFailures. Do they really deserve it? They are markeddownbecause of the scandal and corruptionthat disgraced their administrations. Butthey were careless and negligent ratherthan villainous. Their sin was excessiveloyalty to crooked friends. "Hardingwas nota badman,"as TheodoreRoosevelt'sdaughter,Alice Roosevelt Longworth, putit. "He wasjust a slob."13Thepresidentwho commuted the prison sentence of the Socialist leader Eugene V. Debs afterWilson refused to do so hardly merits the bottom slot as the worst of all presidents.Scandal andcorruptionare indefensible, but they may injurethe general welfareless than misconceived policies.Inthenew poll the ineffectual FranklinPierce andtherigidly dogmaticHerbertHoover tie with Grant as the best among the Failures. Next down the list comesNixon. Most respondents, while recognizing Nixon's intelligence and drive, re-solve the "schizoid profile" by concluding that his impressive ability is negatedby his rather more impressive offenses against the Constitution. It is perhapshard to demonstrate that the only president forced to resign from the office wasnot a Failure.The nation'sbelated awakeningto racial injustice explains why two presidentsreceive more Failure votes this time than in earlier polls: James Buchanan, whoseirresolution encouraged the secession of the Confederate states; and AndrewJohnson, who, while a Unionist, was a stout believer in white supremacy. Itseems reasonable to suggest thatBuchanan,AndrewJohnson, Hoover, andNixondamagedthe republica good deal more thandidthehapless Grantandthe fecklessHarding.Nine men, we have seen, have led the list from the first Schlesinger poll ofhistorians nearly half a century ago. What do Washington, Jefferson, Jackson,Polk, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Trumanhave in common? What do they, and Eisenhower too, who arrived too late forthe 1948 poll, tell us aboutthe qualities necessary for success in the White House?Well, half were over six feet tall. The exceptions were Polk (5' 8"), TheodoreRoosevelt (5' 10"), Wilson (5' 11"), Truman(5' 9") and Eisenhower (5' 10 1/2").On the other hand, James Monroe, John Tyler, Buchanan, Chester A. Arthur,Taft, Harding, Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Gerald Ford, Reagan, Bush, andClintonwere also six feet or more; so height by itself is no guaranteeof greatnessin the White House. Nor is education. Nearly half the prize group-Washington,Jackson, Lincoln, andTruman never attended college. As for age, the average

12 WilliamJ. Ridings, Jr. andStuartB. McIver, RatingthePresidents:From heGreatandHonorableto the Dishonest and Incompetent New York: Citadel Press, 1997).13 Alice Roosevelt Longworth, CrowdedHours (New York: Scribner's, 1933), 324-25.


9/13


age of the nine atinaugurationor succession was 54 years; so youth is a compara-tive advantage.Height and age are minor considerations. Intelligence helps, though Reaganwith his seven Near Greats shows that an influential president need not havemuch. Maturity?The British ambassador called Theodore Roosevelt an arrested11-year-old. Unflinching honesty? Deviousness is a presidential characteristicnot confined to Eisenhower. Loyalty?This canbe apresidential defect: rememberGrant and Harding. Private virtues do not guarantee public effectiveness.More to the point is the test proposed 125 years ago by our most brillianthistorian, Henry Adams. The American president, he wrote, "resembles thecommander of a ship at sea. He must have a helm to grasp, a course to steer,a port to seek."'14 he Constitutionoffers every president a helm, but the courseand the port constitute the first requirement for presidential greatness. Greatpresidents possess, or are possessed by, a vision of an ideal America. Theirpassion is to make sure the ship of state sails on the right course.If that course is indeed right, it is because they have an instinct for thedynamics of history. "A statesmanmay be determinedandtenacious,"de Gaulleonce observed, ". . . but, if he does not understandthe character of his time,he will fail."'15 reat Presidents have a deep connection with the needs, anxieties,dreams of the people. "I do not believe," said Wilson, "thatany man can leadwho does not act . . . under the impulse of a profound sympathy with thosewhom he leads-a sympathy which is insight-an insight which is of the heartrather than of the intellect.",16"All our great presidents," said Franklin D. Roosevelt, "were leaders ofthought at times when certain ideas in the life of the nation had to be clarified."So Washingtonembodied the idea of federalunion, JeffersonandJackson the ideaof democracy, Lincoln union andfreedom, Cleveland rugged honesty. TheodoreRoosevelt and Wilson, said FDR, were both "moral leaders, each in his ownway and his own time, who used the presidency as a pulpit.""7To succeed, presidentsmust have a portto seek and must convince Congressand the electorate of the rightness of their course. Politics in a democracy isultimatelyan educationalprocess, an adventurein persuasionand consent. Everypresident stands in Theodore Roosevelt's bully pulpit. National crisis widens hisrange of options but does not automatically make a man great. The crisis ofrebellion did not spur Buchanan to leadership, nor did the crisis of depressionturn Hoover into a bold and imaginative president. Their inadequacies in theface of crisis allowed Lincoln and the second Roosevelt to show the differencethat individuals can make to history.

'4 Henry Adams, "The Session, 1869-1870" in G. E. Hochfield, ed., The GreatSecession Winterof 1860-61 and Other Essays, (New York: Sagamore Press, 1958), 197.'5 Charlesde Gaulle, The Edge of the Sword (New York: Criterion, 1960), 81.16 WoodrowWilson, Leaders of Men, T. H. Vail Motter, ed. (Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversityPress, 1952), 53-54.17 Anne O'Hare McCormick, "Roosevelt'sView of the Big Job,"New York TimesMagazine, 11September 1932.


10/13


Of national crises, war is the most fateful, and all the top ten save Jeffersonwere involved in war either before or during theirpresidencies. As Robert Higgshas noted, five (Polk, Lincoln, Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Truman) werecommanders-in-chiefwhen the republic was at war, and four more (Washington,Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Eisenhower) made pre-presidential eputationson thebattlefield.Militarymetaphorseven accompaniednonmilitary rises. In sum-moning the nation to battle against the Great Depression, FranklinRoosevelt calledon Americansto "move as a trainedand loyal army"and asked Congressfor "broadExecutive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power thatwould be given to me if we were in fact invadedby a foreign foe."'18Crisis helps those who can rise to it, andthe associationof war with presiden-tial greatness has its ominous aspect. Still, two of the immortals, it should benoted, made their mark without benefit of first-ordercrisis. Jackson and TheodoreRoosevelt forced the nation through sheer power of personality to recognizeincipient problems Jackson in vindicatingthe national authorityagainstthe stateof South Carolina and against the Second Bank of the United States; the firstRoosevelt in vindicating the national authority against the great corporations andagainst raids on the people's natural resources. As the historian Elting Morisonadmirably described this quality of noncrisis leadership: "TheodoreRooseveltcould get the attentionof his fellow citizens and make them think. He knew howto put the hard questions a little before they became obvious to others; how tomake the search for sensible answers exciting; how to startle the country intoinforming debate; and how to move people into their thinking beyond short-runself-interest toward some longer view of the general welfare."19We hear much these days about the virtues of the middle of the road. Butnot one of the top nine can be described as a middle-roader. Middle-roadingmay be fine for campaigning, but it is a sure road to mediocrity in governing.The succession of middle-roaders after the Civil War inspired James Bryce towrite the notoriouschapterin TheAmerican Commonwealthentitled"WhyGreatMen Are Not Chosen President."20The middle of the road is not the vital center:it is the dead center.The Greats and Near Greats all recognized, in theaphorismof Pierre Mendes-France, that"togovern is to choose." They all took risks in pursuitof theirideals.They all provoked intense controversy. They all, except Washington, dividedthe nation before reuniting it on a new level of national understanding.Every president would like to be loved by everyone in the country, butpresidentswho sacrifice convictions to a quest for popular affection are not likelyto make it to the top. Harding was an immensely popular president. His deathprovoked an outpouringof nationalgrief that observers thoughtunmatchedsincethe death of Lincoln. Scholars are unanimous in pronouncing him a Failure.

18 Franklin D. Roosevelt, First InauguralAddress.'9 Elting Morison testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 19 January 1978.20 James Bryce, TheAmericanCommonwealth London:Macmillan, 1888), I, chap. 8.


11/13


Presidentswho seek to change he nation's irectionknowthat heyareboundto alienatehosewhoprofit rom hestatusquo. Greatpresidents o aheadanyway."Judgeme," FDR said, "by he enemiesI have made."Truman's pproval atingat theendof his presidencywas down to 31 percent.Look wherehe ranksnow.After his reelection, William JeffersonClinton faces his rendezvouswithhistory. Debarredby the 22nd Amendmentrompursuinga third erm, he mustmake his markbetweennow and 19 January 001. This may notbe easy. The22ndAmendment, y turning eelectedpresidents nto lameducks, reduces heirpoliticalpotency.Second erms end o be timesof trouble: skFDR, Eisenhower,Johnson,Nixon, Reagan.On the otherhand, ame-duckery, y liberatingpresi-dentsfrom thedemandsof reelection,does allow themto runpoliticalrisksfornationalbenefits.Clintonbrings o the barof historya rarecombination f talentsand nfirmi-ties. He is a manof penetratingntelligence.Hehasimpressiveechnicalmasteryof complicated ssues. He has genuine ntellectual uriosityand listens as wellas talks.He is a skilled and resilientpolitician.When the spiritmoveshim, heis capableof real eloquence,and the spirit moves him most of all when heconfronts hesupremeAmericanproblem-race. Racial ustice appearso be hismost authentic oncern.On the otherhand,he lacksself-discipline.Hisjudgment f people s erratic.His politicalresilience strikesmany as flagrantopportunism.His reactionsareinstinctively lacatory,perhaps romgrowingupin ahouseholdwhere he wrongwordsmightprovokeanalcoholicstepfathero violence.He rushes opropitiatethe audiencebeforehim, often at his own long-termexpense.His scandalsandcover-upsareripeforexploitation y a vindictiveopposition.Whocantellhowthis combination f talentsand infirmitieswill play out?To make a markon history, Clintonmustliberatehimself frompolls andfocusgroups.Lethimputhis first-ratentelligenceo workon the hardproblems.Playing t safe, taking t easy, sticking o the middleof the roadmaymakefora more comfortable econd term. Butfollowingthis coursewouldput ClintonalongsideWilliamHowardTaft and Rutherford . Hayesonthe ratings ist. Farbetter o anticipateheproblemsof thetwenty-firstentury, o startle hecountryinto nforming ebate, omovepeople ntothinking eyond hort-runelf-interesttoward ome ongerview of thegeneralwelfareand opropose emedies ufficientto theneedsof theday. Onlyboldnessandcreativity,evenif at timesfoiledandfrustrated,will earnhim a place amongthe immortals.

SCHLESINGER 1996 POLLMethodof calculation:hefollowingnumberswereassigned o eachcategoryGreat = 4; Near Great = 3; Average = 2; Below Average = 1; Failure = -2.Failureseems sucha drastichistoricaludgmentas to require pecialweighting.Then each scorewas dividedby the numberof mentions.


12/13


VotingBreakdown*Near Below MeanRating Great Great Average Average Failure Score

GREATLincoln 32 4.00Washington 31 1 3.97FranklinD. Roosevelt 31 1 3.97NEAR GREATJefferson 12 16 1 3.38Jackson 11 17 1 3.34Theodore Roosevelt 10 18 1 3.31Wilson 11 17 1 3.21Truman 6 21 3 3.10Polk 2 17 8 1 2.71HIGH AVERAGEEisenhower 1 10 20 1 2.34John Adams 10 17 1 2.32Kennedy 9 21 1 2.29Cleveland 8 2 1 2.24Lyndon Johnson 15 12 3 2 2.21Monroe 1 1 22 2 2.15McKinley 5 20 2 2.11AVERAGEMadison 1 2 20 5 1 1.83John Quincy Adams 1 18 8 1.74Harrison 14 7 1.67Clinton 2 17 5 2 1.58Van Buren 18 8 1 1.56Taft 17 9 1 1.52Hayes 16 10 1 1.48Bush 16 12 1 1.45Reagan 7 11 9 4 1.42Arthur 13 11 1 1.40Carter 1 15 12 2 1.37Ford 6 20 2 1.00BELOW AVERAGETaylor 6 17 3 0.88Coolidge 7 16 4 0.81Fillmore 3 20 3 0.77Tyler 6 17 5 0.68FAILUREPierce 15 12 -9Grant 9 18 -9Hoover 11 9 10 -9Nixon 2 4 5 20 -21Andrew Johnson 2 7 17 -23Buchanan 6 22 -38Harding 2 26 -48

* Noteveryrespondentotedforall thepresidents, ence hediscrepanciesn the totalnumber fvotes.


13/13


PARTICIPANTS N 1996 POLLSamuel H. Beer, HarvardUniversity Louis Koenig, New York UniversityJohn MortonBlum, Yale University William Leuchtenburg,University ofAlan Brinkley, Columbia University North CarolinaDouglas Brinkley, University of New David Levering Lewis, Rutgers UniversityOrleans ArthurLink, PrincetonUniversityWalter Dean Burnham, University of Forrest McDonald, Universityof AlabamaTexas Merrill Peterson, Universityof VirginiaJamesMacGregor Burns, Williams College Richard M. Pious, BarnardCollegeMario Cuomo RobertV. Remini, University of Illinois atRobert Dallek, Boston University ChicagoRobert H. Ferrell, IndianaUniversity Donald A. Ritchie, Senate HistoricalLouis Fisher, Libraryof Congress OfficeEric Foner, Columbia University Robert Rutland, Universityof VirginiaGeorge Frederickson,StanfordUniversity Joel Silbey, Cornell UniversityDoris Kearns Goodwin Paul Simon, U.S. SenateNormanGraebner, University of Virginia Stephen Skowronek,Yale UniversityHenry Graff, Columbia University Hans Trefousse, City University of NewStephen Hess, Brookings Institution YorkMorton Keller, Brandeis University Sean Wilentz, Princeton University

Rating the Presidents Washington to Clinton

Documents

Transcript of Rating the Presidents Washington to Clinton