The news is that gambling goes on in casinos and that liberal shenanigans are practiced by university professors: in a poll conducted by Siena College in Loudonville, New York, and released today, professors, aka the best and the brightest, rank FDR as the greatest president of all time, and George W. Bush as one of the five scraping the political barrel. Interestingly, Obama comes in at 15.

Why so low? I mean of course, Obama not Bush. Though Obama was rated 6th in imagination, 7th in communication ability, and 8th in intelligence, he scored poorly on “background” which the survey defines as, “family, education and experience.”

Clearly, Obama has received a top-notch education—so we can only assume that the professors think poorly of his family background and experience. It’s obvious that Obama was not very experienced when he entered office—but what could the survey mean by ranking Obama low on “family”? Could it be because he had an unwed mother and an absent father in Kenya? That would be too bad. I thought we were past that sort of thing.

George W. Bush, meanwhile, comes in next to last in the categories of intelligence, communication ability, foreign policy accomplishments, the ability to compromise, and the handling of the U.S. economy.

This Politico story notes that in the overall rankings, Bush came in at “number 39, qualifying him as one of the five worst presidents”—which may be a glass half-empty way of looking at the survey. The way many see it, as with Politico, Bush isn’t one of the five worst presidents of all time, but the 39th best.

But seriously, will history redeem the Texan from the scowls of academics?

Since its inception nearly thirty years ago, this survey has always ranked FDR as the greatest president of all time--in part because Adlai Stevenson wasn't actually elected president. Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Teddy Roosevelt fall in line, in varying orders, as two, three, four, and five after.

  • Comment Filters
Contributor Comments
Member Comments
Comment Popularity

Comments :


Joined
May '10
Conor Friedersdorf

In my opinion, George Washington deserves top billing. In so many ways, he invented the American presidency, and his stewardship of the executive branch came at a time when the union was quite fragile, and when a lesser man would've succumb to the suggestion offered by his acolytes that he become something more akin to a king. Despite my objections to court packing, it's also clear that FDR belongs high on any list -- people forget that the Great Depression saw the rise of Communist and fascist movements in America, that staving off both was itself an accomplishment, and that being Commander in Chief during the most important conflict in Western Civilization must count for a lot.

It's too early to judge President Obama, but so far he has done very little of historical consequence, IMHO. And it's probably too early to judge President Bush too, but I currently consider him to be a terrible president (though certainly not the worst).

etoiledunord
Joined
Jun '10
etoiledunord

People who live in the relatively-safe artificial environment of tenured university professorship probably judge "best" differently. By my evaluation, a President who concentrates on those things that only a President can do, like diplomacy and military readiness, and otherwise leaves me (and my wallet) alone, is a great President. The more social engineering they try to do, the lower they go on my list. FDR would drop to the middle.

Joseph Stanko
Joined
Jun '10
Joseph Stanko

Why is Jefferson ranked so highly? His major achievement, the Lousiana Purchase, was chiefly a matter of being in the right place at the right time. If Pierce and Buchanan merit the bottom 5 for "failure to avert the Civil War," Jefferson's embargo nearly bankrupted the young nation while failing to avert the War of 1812. As a Founding Father and author of the Declaration he deserves our reverence, but judging strictly by his 8 years in the White House I doubt he'd make my Top 20. I dare say I might even grade him below W...

Devin Cole
Joined
May '10
Devin Cole

I think FDR performed quite commendably in execution of American involvement in WWII. Regarding domestic policy, I think his policies were a failure. He likely extended the Great Depression through government spending and social engineering.

I believe a couple decades from now, George W. Bush will be treated more kindly. I think he handled the terrorist attacks and our national response quite well. I think he was on the right track with tax cuts and the wrong on spending.

I don't think it is even feasible to try to rank President Obama at this point.


Joined
Jun '10
Ted Smith

The fact that Washington places fourth on these historical polls is criminal. Twice he voluntarily walked away from power, and let's not forget the seven years he spent leading the continental army, the fact that he led the Constitutional Convention, and was a much better politician than most give him credit for being.

FDR was a disaster during the Depression, but a good war president. But, hard as FDR's task was in WWII, it pales in comparison to the difficulties, not to mention the casualties, faced by Lincoln. And horror of horrors, he had to deal with McClellan.

Of course, one wouldn't expect academics to dislike Reagan, but he was a great leader and the right man at the right time. His speeches were infinitely better than those delivered by "the One." Reagan actually believed what he said.

Thus my top three: Washington, Lincoln, and Reagan.


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading
Welcome Visitor

Already a Member?
Please Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Join Ricochet today!

Already a Member? Sign In