Sunday, July 4, 2010
It's Out. The Siena Research Institute's 5th Survey of U.S. Presidents
Just in time for the 4th of July, the Siena Research Institue has published it 5th presidential survey based on the input of 238 presidential scholars. The Roosevelts get top honors: FDR is #1 and TR is #2, followed by Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson (notwithstanding the Texas School Board's efforts to vote him out of history). Obama comes in at 15th out of 43. George W. is 39th. Bill Clinton is 13th. G. H. Bush comes in at 22. See American Presidents: Greatest and Worst. The complete rankings here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
This is one very strange rating, especially when it is reportedly made by presidential 'scholars'. Any rating system that deals out equal weight for "Background" and "Domestic Accomplishments" is either suspect or trying to be funny.
The right-wing pundits, incensed that Obama has a higher ranking than Reagan only after a brief time in office, are saying that this poll says more about academia than it does about the quality of any president.
But, c'mon, this is like the academy awards: there's little more than just a vague correlation with reality here to begin with. How do you quantify and compare presidential performances over some 225 years plus? So, nit-picking about the process is a little silly.
To my mind "nit-picking about the process" is pretty much the only valid purpose of an activity such as "Let's make a numerical ranking of the Presidents." I'm right behind the right-wing pundits on this one. It's like the "This American Life" episode (everything is best seen as a reflection of "This American Life" where they were putting numerical values on inappropriate things, like love.
Let's face it there is very little to be learned from a numerical rating of presidents other than the discussion that follows. Perhaps, in that discussion, some historical lessons of the presidents can be learned.
Brother Bob once said that the purpose of all human discourse was to reach agreement. Otherwise, there's no point to it. I wholly agree with your last statment. The real value of these lists (like the list of greatest rock-and-roll songs of all time) is the discussion it generates.
A couple on the top of the list surprise me: Teddy Roosevelt at second (isn't 1, 2 and 3 normally reserved for FDR, Lincoln and Washington, no questions asked?) Also, I have heard that Polk was making a comeback. There was a couple recent biographies that put him in a good light (basically he set out to a certain number of things in 4 years, did them, and then left the White House). It's like when David McCullough's book on John Adams or Harry Truman came out, suddenly presidents who had forever been looked down on got a big boost.
Also, a note about lists. I was in Barnes and Noble a few months back and I noticed Q Magazine, a British music magazine, claiming to list the top rock and roll performers of all time. Intrigued, I leafed through it, desperate to find number number one. I passed Bono, John Lennon, Mick Jagger, all the time wondering who it could be. Then finally, there he was... Noel Gallagher from Oasis. Noel Gallagher???? I was stunned. I closed the magazine, replaced it on the shelf and immediately dismissed the list as irrelevant. (I later discovered that the list was generated by votes from the public. As one commentator noted, this was truly democracy gone wrong. And it was definitely list-making gone wrong)
I'm not buying any list of top rock performers that doesn't include Rammstein.
Post a Comment