Before sidetracking to the vitriol that has been the tone of this blog for the past few weeks or months, the goal was to suggest George W. Bush might be credited with far more greatness than today's historians and media are willing to acquiesce.
It is probably very difficult to suggest a ranking of these 43 men that is not going to be biased by certain political leanings. The criteria by which such a task should be benchmarked has to be established in as close to an objective manner as possible. Simply going by my first thought that a President should be considered great by how well he upholds his oath of office to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States," leaves us lacking any real empirical evidence by which to judge. Still far too much room for opinion and subjectivity.
I read a suggestion that a very objective manner in which to rank the presidents would be to look at the electoral college vote. Of course, this might not give us a complete view of what actions the man may have taken while in office or how those actions affected the nation in the long term. Conversely, using this method shows a pretty clear picture and it does not completely disagree with historians.
The top ten round out with George Washington - 96.14%, James Monroe - 90.55%, Franklin Roosevelt - 88.32%, Dwight Eisenhower - 84.65%, Ulysses S. Grant - 75.40%, Bill Clinton - 69.65%, Woodrow Wilson - 67.04%, Thomas Jefferson - 64.71%, Richard Nixon - 64.46%, and Abraham Lincoln - 64.18% (75% if ignoring the southern states which had already seceded before the 1864 elections).
Since Ronald Reagan won one electoral vote in 1976 from a faithless Ford elector, his total was reduced from 94.23% (a number two ranking) to 63.44% (still ranked at a very respectable #12). The '80 and '84 elections are treated like FDR's second and third terms.
These are the voting public's view of the top ten presidents of the United States based on the electoral college. Wartime and the aftermath seems to be one of the more significant common threads. Of course, there are some exceptions.
Is this a fair way to reason out who might be the greatest of the POTUS alumni?
2 comments:
I would argue it's not. The electoral college vote measures merely what one candidate did against another candidate. Ultimately, it's essentially a popularity contest--pre-any presidential achievement. You could make the argument that in 2008, if Lincoln had to run against Washington, it would have been split 50-50. But if Lincoln would have had to run against Mondale, he would have won 100-0.
You're right; however, every one of these was at least a two term president (Franklin Roosevelt being the exception having served four terms).
In all honesty, it is seems to be amazingly accurate when you consider what each of them did that had lasting affect on the country and the world.
George Washington, the father of our country. James Monroe, the Author of the Monroe Doctrine which is still the foundation for our foreign affairs policy in the western hemisphere. Dwight Eisenhower, Ulysses Grant, and Bill Clinton provided leadership in post war America, leading in times of prosperity. Grant is the developer of our modern-day military. Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Richard Nixon and Woodrow Wilson lead the country through some very difficult times including bloody wars. I'd say that although the list is based on elections (personality contests), it does a pretty good job indicating other things too.
Post a Comment