Julian E. Zelizer: What's Wrong with Presidential Rankings
[Julian E. Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. He is the author of "Jimmy Carter," published by Times Books, and editor of a book assessing former President George W. Bush's administration, published by Princeton University Press.]
Since the late 1940s, it has been an American custom for pollsters and publications to release a ranking of U.S. presidents.
Usually based on a survey of historians and journalists or of the public, the ranking informs readers about who the "best" and "worst" presidents are. In an age when we are constantly desperate to craft Top 10 lists for every part of our lives, this approach to political history is appealing.
But rankings don't tell us much about presidential history. The rankings are weak mechanisms for evaluating what has taken place in the White House....
There are many flaws with the system. The first is that presidential reputations vary over time. Any ranking simply captures how people view the presidents at a given moment. It is not a definitive measure. Although there are a few presidents who constantly hover at the top, such as Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, most experience significant fluctuations over time.
Take the case of Dwight Eisenhower, who was president from 1953 to 1961. Initially, many observers believed that Eisenhower was a weak leader, someone who exerted little influence over his Cabinet and who essentially allowed his advisers to call the shots. But research in the presidential archives (where the White House deposits its records for scholars to examine) later revealed that this perception was totally incorrect.
Political scientist Fred Greenstein and historian Robert Griffith both found that behind the scenes, Eisenhower maintained a strong hold on decision-making. In what he called the "hidden hand presidency," Greenstein presented Eisenhower as an effective decision maker who maintained control over his Cabinet....
Read entire article at CNN.com
Since the late 1940s, it has been an American custom for pollsters and publications to release a ranking of U.S. presidents.
Usually based on a survey of historians and journalists or of the public, the ranking informs readers about who the "best" and "worst" presidents are. In an age when we are constantly desperate to craft Top 10 lists for every part of our lives, this approach to political history is appealing.
But rankings don't tell us much about presidential history. The rankings are weak mechanisms for evaluating what has taken place in the White House....
There are many flaws with the system. The first is that presidential reputations vary over time. Any ranking simply captures how people view the presidents at a given moment. It is not a definitive measure. Although there are a few presidents who constantly hover at the top, such as Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, most experience significant fluctuations over time.
Take the case of Dwight Eisenhower, who was president from 1953 to 1961. Initially, many observers believed that Eisenhower was a weak leader, someone who exerted little influence over his Cabinet and who essentially allowed his advisers to call the shots. But research in the presidential archives (where the White House deposits its records for scholars to examine) later revealed that this perception was totally incorrect.
Political scientist Fred Greenstein and historian Robert Griffith both found that behind the scenes, Eisenhower maintained a strong hold on decision-making. In what he called the "hidden hand presidency," Greenstein presented Eisenhower as an effective decision maker who maintained control over his Cabinet....