Rating the C-SPAN Survey
This year’s ratings come from 64 historians and observers of the presidency, tilted (unsurprisingly) toward specialists in the 20th century. An unfortunate oversight: the list doesn’t include anyone from the Miller Center’s Presidential Recordings Project (Ernest May, Philip Zelikow, or Tim Naftali would have been obvious choices) despite the work in presidential scholarship that the program has produced. (I was affiliated with the Miller Center for several years, and think highly of its work.)
Some rankings were as expected. As they had in 2000, the historians ranked Abraham Lincoln the nation’s greatest President, with George Washington and FDR rounding out the top three. (Washington and FDR reversed positions between 2000 and 2009, with Washington moving up to #2.) Also, as they had in 2000, the C-SPAN historians chose James Buchanan as the nation’s worst President, with Andrew Johnson and Franklin Pierce as second- and third-worst, respectively.
Some rankings were comical. In the international relations category, George W. Bush ranked 41st. Whose foreign policy, according to the historians, was worse? William Henry Harrison! It’s hard to see what Harrison did in his month-long tenure that earned him such a negative score. Indeed, Harrison’s affiliation with mainstream Whig philosophy—which championed diplomacy and a vigorous overseas commerce while frowning on armed expansionism—should win him plaudits.
Another peculiar foreign policy score went to Warren Harding. The Harding administration featured some significant international accomplishments: the Washington Treaties, which achieved real naval disarmament and set up the diplomatic system that shaped 1920s East Asian international affairs; the Hughes-Peynado Accords, which paved the way for the U.S. withdrawal from the Dominican Republic; and successful debt renegotiations with some of the World War I allies. Yet his foreign policy ranking was 37th, eight slots below that of Calvin Coolidge (whose presidency featured a war scare with Mexico, a renewed military intervention in Nicaragua, and the least qualified secretary of state of the 20th century, Frank Kellogg.)
Perhaps the most dubious rankings, however, involved the overall scores given to two recent Democrats, John Kennedy and Bill Clinton. Kennedy was ranked the sixth-best President, up from eighth in 2000. The two Presidents he surpassed between 2000 and 2009: Thomas Jefferson and Woodrow Wilson. In 2000, eighth seemed like a pretty high ranking for Kennedy, but it’s hard to justify placing him over two two-term chief executives with major accomplishments in both the foreign policy and domestic spheres.
I’m obviously partial to LBJ, but it seems to me that—quite apart from Wilson and Jefferson, which aren’t particularly close calls—a strong case could be made for ranking LBJ ahead of Kennedy. Johnson’s major failure—Vietnam—was an outgrowth of decisions made by his predecessor, and Johnson’s legislative skills were key both in the passage of the Civil Rights Act and a social welfare package far more ambitious than anything Kennedy likely would have produced.
The second questionable overall score involved Bill Clinton, who rose from a 21 ranking in 2000 to the 15th-best President in 2009, moving past John Adams, James Madison, John Quincy Adams, Grover Cleveland, William McKinley, and George H.W. Bush.
Making comparisons across eras is always difficult: were Clinton’s “administrative skills” really better than J.Q. Adams’; or was his vision and ability to set an agenda more comprehensive than that of McKinley? But what information has emerged in the last nine years to support altering the 2000 rankings and elevating Clinton ahead of Bush I—especially after a presidential campaign in which the ultimate Democratic nominee seemed to say as many nice things about Bush I’s performance as he did about Clinton’s?
For the historians, the two key elements in the shift came in the categories of relations with Congress and economic management. Under the heading of relations with Congress, Clinton’s ranking rose by 17 slots (from 36th to 19th), the largest surge in any category for any President. In the new rankings, he beat out Bush, whose ranking was 20th (unchanged from 2000).
It’s very hard to account for this shift. Clinton, after all, has two overwhelming negatives in this category—impeachment and his disastrous handling of health care in 1993-1994—balanced against two major pieces of legislation (welfare reform and the 1993 budget), some constitutionally dubious but politically palatable initiatives (such as DOMA), and a record of doing little because of gridlock in a period of economic growth. Bush, on the other hand, had a quite impressive record of bipartisan accomplishments (especially in light of the two presidencies that followed him), on specialty issues (such as the Americans with Disability Act) and on major questions (the 1990 budget deal). Bush also put together congressional majorities for two of his major, if highly controversial, initiatives—the Gulf War declaration and the Clarence Thomas confirmation. In short, I see no objective criteria where Clinton’s relations with Congress would be ranked higher than Bush I’s.
On the economic front, Clinton appropriately receives kudos—he’s now ranked #3, behind only Washington and Lincoln. Bush is ranked 23rd, though the 1990 budget deal was critical in laying the foundations for 1990s prosperity, even if it cost him politically. Meanwhile, Clinton’s ranking in international relations actually rose between 2000 and 2009 (from 21st to 16th, with Bush at 9th)—even though the last decade has featured much more attention on the administration’s failure in Rwanda and its spotty record in dealing with Al Qaeda.
For the record, I think both Bush I and Clinton were average Presidents; it just seems hard, based on the different perspectives we have now as compared to 2000, to justify moving Clinton ahead of Bush I, and to do so principally on the basis of a newfound appreciation for the Democrat’s relations with Congress.
Overall, though, the survey makes for a fascinating read—C-SPAN, alone among the presidential surveys, breaks down into the ten categories as well as providing an overall score, allowing, at the least, for some sense of the criteria that the individual scholars used to reach their decisions.