
A Better Mt. Rushmore
Everybody has fun with this one, so I decided to try to come up with a complete set of Powell History rankings for America’s Presidents so far, not including Obama. (I know where I expect him to end up, but I’ll let him prove me right over time.)
Coming up with a complete set of rankings is not an easy task, so I decided to start with some groupings, just to get a preliminary sense of where I’d have everybody. The groups don’t necessarily indicate what a president’s final ranking will be. They are more periodized, i.e. chronological, than anything, although I find that they help me to achieve greater clarity, as any good conceptual framework does.
I know, for instance, that I’d have the first five presidents as my top five–though I don’t have a definitive order for them just yet.
Group 1: Founders
Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe
I also know for certain that there are certain Twentieth century “unforgivables” that I would put at the bottom of my rankings. Again, I’m not sure the exact order I’d have them in just yet. Sadly, there are twice as many of these as there are presidents that I love.
Group 2: Unforgivables
Teddy Roosevelt, Taft, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Eisenhower, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, George Bush Sr., Bill Clinton
The middle, of course, is the hardest to sort out, but to organize it somewhat I’ve got the following groups:
Group 3: The Punters
JQ Adams, Jackson, Van Buren, Harrison, Tyler, and Polk, Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan
Punters? One of my students called them this. These are all the presidents who, following the Founding Era, had to deal with the issue of slavery, but decided to “punt.”
Group 4: Lincoln
A category all by himself. For most people, an easy one. For most Objectivists, not so easy. For me, easy.
Group 5: The Long Twentieth Century
Subgroup 5a: Reconstruction presidents: Johnson, Grant
Subgroup 5b: The “Mixed Bag” – Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland, Harrison, Cleveland (again), McKinley, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Truman, JFK, Ford, Reagan, and “W”
So, how am I going to work the detailed rankings? Well, I’m going to apply a basic template that includes two primary metrics: foreign policy and domestic policy. Foreign policy will be measured with American self-interest as the standard, and presidents’ ideas, intentions and results as the quanta. Domestic policy will be measured with individual rights–to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness–as the standard. This will include looking at whether a president advanced the cause of individual rights–are there any who did besides the Founders and Lincoln?–or how they damaged our rights by promoting or abetting the cause of statism. Usually, of course, it’s a “mixed bag.”
This dual template will operate on a sliding scale to account for “level of difficulty.” Obviously, you don’t get as many points for a presidential “one and a half somersault” as you do for an “armstand three and a half with a twist”. (Of course, if you as the President forced the nation into an “armstand” when it could just as easily have been upright, then your points go down, even if you successfully maneuvered through whatever problem you created.)
In the event of a tie, then I’ll deploy other considerations, such as non-presidential activity. For instance, if you wrote something like a Declaration of Independence, then you obviously get some pretty major bonus points. If, on the other hand, you made a career of appeasing Islamic terrorism while in and out of office, then you drop even further. (Nobel Peace prizes will not figure prominently in these rankings, unless they serve to illustrate a president’s commitment to internationalism–in which case, if necessary, they will certainly be used to reduce a president’s score.)
First up, in the next installment: sorting out the Founders. Let the hand wringing begin!
Wonderful! I’m really looking forward to your rankings. And I think I already know will be #1…
Interesting that you include Bush Junior as a mixed bag. He basically began the process of the Fascist nationalization of the banking system which the Obamasiah looks like he will finish. I don’t know what the good elements in Bush’s “mix” are but I’ll definitely tune in to get your take on it. I’m thinking “W” is an unforgivable and that by the time he’s done, Obama may replace FDR as the biggest monster to ever occupy the White House.
I know, I know; if I want to be Mr. Helper with lots of suggestions then I should make my own list. Having acknowledged that…
* JFK should be on the unforgivable list because of the policy influences he had on LBJ, Nixon, and Clinton [plus, possibly Carter with foreign policy] who wanted to accomplish what JFK failed to do. Given his legacy, his incompetence should not spare JFK from a harsh judgment.
* Related to that, I hope that extra consideration is given to the long term implications of their policies. For example, Wilson has federal segregation, self-determination (ethnic collectivism that still kills today), Federal Reserve, progressive income tax, drug prohibition, and League of Nations.
* Also, punter Buchanan should get extra negative points for utterly failing to perform the most essential presidential function: to be a unifying force as head of state.
Looking back on these comments, I realized that I just petitioned for my bottom three.
Jim:
I’ll take your points about JFK under advisement, but there ain’t no way he goes in the bottom three! Actually, I’m pretty sure I already know my bottom three, and of the ones you mentioned only Wilson is in it–NOT at the bottom, either! I like your point about long term influence. I already had that point in my mind, because my basic criterion for choosing the worst president is the *ideas* they represent, if any–as expressed through their policies, but also through the stated principles that became a part of American political culture.
I agree with you that Buchanan is probably the worst of the “Punters.” He is deep into the bottom half of the rankings.

Scott
We’re debating this before Scott can get his list out, but it’s an interesting conversation nonetheless. Scott’s “teasers” seem to have worked.
Bob, I think W. is a mixed bag for his initial attempts at a self-interested foreign policy (which he quickly squandered, of course) and for some attempts to stop environmental regulations, just to name two areas. On the other side, he continued the altruist foreign policy of “bringing democracy to the world for the benefit of others” (and yes, I use ‘democracy’ because that’s what the anti-conceptual W thought… he never understood what a republic was) and he let a bunch of environmental regulations go through (like Bush Bulbs — banning incandescent bulbs). So… a mostly negative mixed bag.
Jim, you make some interesting points about JFK. I think what might keep him in my mixed bag category is his stand against the Soviets, but I must admit at not being fully educated about all of what JFK did.
I’m really surprised that you’d not have Teddy Roosevelt in your bottom three. I think he was the most despicable president in history, so far. Domestically, think Antitrust (that alone would put him in the bottom 3) and the rise of populism. In foreign policy, the bastardization of the Monroe Doctrine with the contemptible “Roosevelt Corollary” which even FDR later recognized as un-American.
This is fun stuff (if depressing at the same time… it was all downhill after Monroe). OK, Scott, we’re ready for the Founding Fathers!
Looks like Scott posted a reply while I was writing mine…
Coolidge, Harding, and Cleveland in the same group as Ford, JFK, and W?!
William Henry Harrison as a “punter?” Give the guy a break about not doing anything to combat slavery!
I knew I’d get people excited with just my preliminary groupings! You have to keep in mind these are prelims. As I noted, they don’t determine the final ranking. There is definitely a range of “punters” anda range of “mixed bag” candidates. The ranking of presidents from these two categories are going to have to overlap.
Scott,
I am really looking forward to this list and the reasoning behind the rankings. This sure will be very educational for me, I know for a fact!!
Why have some many of our presidents after the founders been so mediocre?
Basically, a good president is one who defends individual rights, and the Founders were obviously committed to the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The problem is that they didn’t have a deep intellectual understanding of individual rights to transmit to their successors. In particular, they had no ethical theory to underpin their political views. This made it possible for Christianity–which holds that the moral worth of an individual is determined through altruistic sacrifice to others–to gradually undermine their founding statement of the individual’s moral right to his own life.
Van Buren resisted the creation of a central bank. Seems to me he should get some credit for that.
I agree–some credit–but not much, because it wasn’t for any deep ideological reasons, therefore there was no long term benefit.
Hmmm… you set up an interesting topic…
Here are my opinions.
(Unranked):
Barack Obama
William Harrison
James Garfield
Zachary Taylor
Top:
Abraham Lincoln
Very High:
Thomas Jefferson
George Washington
Franklin Roosevelt
Harry S Truman
High:
Theodore Roosevelt
Ronald Reagan
Dwight Eisenhower
John Kennedy
Calvin Coolidge
Low:
Lyndon Johnson
James Carter
Richard Nixon
Gerald Ford
Very Low:
Martin Van Buren
Rutherford Hayes
Herbert Hoover
Warren Harding
Woodrow Wilson
George W. Bush
John Tyler
Millard Fillmore
Franklin Peirce
Bottom:
Andrew Johnson
James Buchanan
Email me.
I’m open for an intellectual discussion.
- Duster
By what standard do you propose this arrangement? Level of difficulty?
Why Jefferson above Washington? James Monroe doesn’t even get ranked?
Jimmy Carter only “low”? He deserves even more blame than Eisenhower and FDR for facilitating the rise of the militant Middle East. If he had squished Iran when he should have, there would be no Islamism.
I didn’t create this list for exactness, I feel as if I should have switched them around. But for the most part, it’s how I felt. Presidents are hard to rank because most of them have made big mistakes.
I forgot Monroe! I probably would’ve ranked him mid-high.
I prefer Jefferson over Washington for his smaller government ideals, although I despise both of them for holding hundreds of slaves.
I don’t like Carter much, but I believe he inherited the many mistakes from Vietnam. And most of the presidents below him I put don’t seem to be much better.
I liked Eisenhower, though. Perhaps he made a few errors during his presidency, I consider him a better commander than most other presidents
And I might have gotten carried away putting Coolidge and Kennedy on high.