Bow Down

C-SPAN released another presidential ranking over the weekend, their first since 2009, and predictably many of the worst abusers of executive power found their name at the top of the list—Lincoln, FDR, TR, Truman, LBJ, Obama, Wilson—while those that expressed some fealty to the Constitution are typically buried in the bottom half.

Some of this was undoubtedly due to the methodology. The 122 historians surveyed were asked to rank the presidents based on the following criteria: “Public Persuasion,” “Crisis Leadership,” “Economic Management,” “Moral Authority,” “International Relations,” “Administrative Skills,” “Relations with Congress,” “Vision/Setting An Agenda,” “Pursued Equal Justice for All,” and “Performance Within the Context of His Times.”

Absent was the most important: “Upheld his oath of office.” That pesky little think called the Constitution always gets in the way, particularly for the modern president.

None of the criteria C-SPAN chose are found in the document. Last time I checked, Social Justice Warrior in Chief was not in the job description, neither was Legislator in Chief, though that is what we have come to expect.

Current Prices on popular forms of Gold Bullion

And what does “Performance Within the Context of His Times” mean, anyway? I find it hard to believe that many of these historians rated Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, or John Tyler near the bottom based on anything but presentism. All held views on race that modern Americans consider appalling but were the widely held opinions of the time, and all three used the executive branch to strike down unconstitutional legislation and had the support a large swath of the American population. Johnson and Pierce are often derided for being too Party driven. Last time I inspected the historical record, the Democratic Party they supported was still a major Party during their administrations. It held the majority of seats in Congress while Pierce was in office, and Pierce crushed his opponent in 1852 by nearly 200 Electoral College votes. His successor, James Buchanan, not coincidentally last on the list, won by 60 in 1856 and carried 19 of 31 states. Pierce carried 27 of 31 states. That is a landslide. Modern progressives may find their actions disturbing (that should be a ringing endorsement), but it sounds like both men fit the “context of his times.” They won. Obama rubbed that fact in the face of Republicans during his State of the Union Address and he received thunderous applause. Piece and Buchanan get the bottom of the barrel.

Does Lincoln get a pass on his belief that whites and blacks could never be equal? Or how about Wilson who advocated and then achieved de jure segregation of the federal government? What about TR who believed in eugenics and called Africans “ape-like naked savages,” or his cousin FDR who signed an executive order placing thousands of Japanese-Americans in internment camps? Seems they do, because each one of these men is found in the top 11 with Lincoln, FDR, and TR in the top five.

The other problem has to do with the fact that most of the historians surveyed (not all; there are a few good people on the list) are progressives who believe in the power, activity, and authority of the general government, the Constitution be damned. How else could someone like FDR or LBJ make the top quarter while Grover Cleveland and Martin Van Buren—both constitutional stalwarts—languish in executive purgatory? Cleveland issued the most vetoes in American history before FDR, but unlike FDR, Cleveland issued his mainly because the bills in question violated the Constitution. FDR vetoed the legislation because it did not fit his agenda.

Most historians are creatures of habit. Lincoln is considered great because these other historians considered him great. Pierce is bad because these other historians considered him to be bad. The same can be said for most of the other presidents, from top to bottom. Many historians like to think they are “speaking truth to power” when in fact they could not become “establishment,” tenured, or prize-winning authors without trumpeting the fashionable and accepted historical trends. The modern historical profession is often groupthink at its worst.

This is precisely why I wrote 9 Presidents Who Screwed Up America and Four Who Tried to Save Her. My list looks dramatically different. I write about Lincoln, FDR, TR, Truman, and LBJ, but not in the glowing terms the C-SPAN survey believes they deserve. All five screwed up America, meaning they continually and willfully violated their oath of office.

And then there is Obama. How his disaster of an administration placed him at twelve is one of the great mysteries of the survey. If “Pursued Equal Justice for All” was weighed as heavily for others as it was for Obama, then Wilson and TR should be dead last. Obama had a vision, but that was it. He could not work with Congress, had no moral authority, lacked administrative and diplomatic skills, and presided over one of the worst economies in American history for the duration of his two terms. Obama destroyed the Democrat Party and

Three of “Four Who Tried to Save Her” are middle of the pack at best: Cleveland, Coolidge, and Tyler.

Tyler was the greatest president in American history according to the oath of office.

For a complete list, I made a free history course on the subject: The Presidents: 10 Worst and 10 Best.

Andrew Johnson, Van Buren, and Pierce all make it, but at the top rather than the bottom.

Opponents of the Constitution in 1788 considered the executive branch to be a major defect of the document. Looking at the establishment historians’ list, we can see why.

The post Bow Down appeared first on LewRockwell.