The Latest Presidential Rankings

[Leonard Leo is Executive Vice President of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Studies]

NEXT WEEK'S Democratic Convention is a national moment when Americans are by turns nostalgic about the presidency and unsparing in their comparisons of the candidates.

Nostalgia comes about because politics, like sports, celebrates contests between giants. The same passion that compels many Americans to collect baseball cards and memorialize the fight between Sugar Ray Leonard and Marvelous Marvin Hagler, compels many others to collect rusty campaign buttons and ancient political slogans (my personal favorite, from the mid-19th century,"We Polked 'em in '44, we'll Pierce 'em in '52.")

Next week and the upcoming Republican Convention are also times for George W. Bush and John Kerry to try to convince the public that each is great enough to meet the challenges of the next presidential term. In looking forward, then, what better time to also look back and ask: What makes a president great?

This question was at the heart of a project sponsored by The Wall Street Journal and the Federalist Society that surveyed 78 liberal and conservative scholars. Their answers created the first national ranking of presidents.

Not surprisingly, George Washington came in at first place, Abraham Lincoln at second, Franklin Roosevelt at third.

Below this category of"greats" our team of scholars ranked the"near greats" -- Thomas Jefferson fourth, Theodore Roosevelt fifth, Harry Truman seventh, Ronald Reagan eighth. Bill Clinton fell into the"average" category (24th) below his predecessor, George H.W. Bush (21st). Jimmy Carter (30th) and Richard Nixon (33d) were rated"below average," but escaped being consigned to the"failure" category, where Andrew Johnson (36th) and James Buchanan (39th and last) reside.

Despite the diversity of thinkers who contributed to this book, a surprising consensus emerges. For years, many upheld the standard of the late presidential scholar, Richard Neustadt, who measured the success of a president by how effectively he wielded power. A number of essayists in the book find this measure wanting. After all, by the Neustadt standard, Andrew Johnson -- universally regarded as a failure -- would have to be ranked a remarkably successful president for imposing his vision of Reconstruction and shaping racial politics well into the mid-20th century.

Clearly, presidential leadership involves something else....