Historian Rick Shenkman has a point. The rating of presidents–a recent survey among historians called Abraham Lincoln our greatest president–probably doesn’t even rise to the level of a parlor game. Parlor games, he says, have rules. But both historians and the public tend to rate presidents by highly movable goal posts.

I myself have been guilty of playing this game, having several years ago named my choices for the country’s best presidents. (I remember that at the time, the whole country breathlessly awaited my decision.)

But I now think that, while I had good reason for picking the presidents I had on my list–my top four were Washington, Lincoln, FDR, and Eisenhower–it probably is silly to put together such ratings. The challenges facing Barack Obama, in spite of the overused rhetoric to the contrary, are not the same as those that faced Roosevelt. (The current set of presidential challenges are both less severe and more complicated than those Roosevelt dealt with, it seems.) Comparisons are tough and usually, subjective.

It’s probably safe to say that Grover Cleveland was a better president than Franklin Pierce, though. (In his defense, Pierce would no doubt win any presidential tippling contest.) But generally, I suppose, it’s always foolish to try comparing apples and oranges–or, Washingtons and Kennedys. Or Madisons and Wilsons.

At least that’s what I think this week.

[This has been crossposted at my personal blog.]
MARK DANIELS
Sort by:   newest | oldest
jeburke
Guest
jeburke
7 years 7 months ago
I think these raings are a silly exercise that tells us more about ourselves than the past Presidents. I do have one enduring difference with the top ranked group — the tendency in recent years or decades to put Lincoln at the top and down grade washington a bit. Washington was, after all, the one truly indispensable man and President. For many years, he — and to a large extent — he alone embodied the nation. He was more than a founder, he was the military strategist and smart leader who made the country possible. He was the person whose… Read more »
StockBoySF
Guest
StockBoySF
7 years 7 months ago

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Which part of this oath that Bush took did he actually follow? And why isn’t he dead last on the list of presidential rankings?

kritt11
Guest
kritt11
7 years 7 months ago

Well, I don’t know if I’d put Bush dead last– after all James Buchanan did nothing to avert the civil war- leaving Lincoln to shoulder the entire burden, but he should at least be after William Henry Harrison. Harrison contracted pneumonia during his Inauguration and was dead within a month. He didn’t accomplish anything, but he didn’t start 2 wars, decimate the middle class and make a mockery of international law either!

StockBoySF
Guest
StockBoySF
7 years 7 months ago
It’s one thing to try to uphold the US Constitution and be inept about it… but it’s another thing entirely to trun the country against itself (remember Bush’s phrase, “You’re either with us or against us” and discredit anyone who has legitimate concerns), lie to the country about the need to go to war, expose undercover agents (Plame) because you (Bush) don’t like the report her husband wrote (which was true), dismantle consumer and environmental protections, torture, do away with some (if not all) of the most basic and fundamental values in our US Constitution…. and all this for his… Read more »
wpDiscuz