Latest Survey Ranking U.S. Presidents

[Morley]

Interesting take, Shades. I wonder why you put the word accurate in scare quotes.

Because criteria that might make a former president look good to one person might be the very same criteria that makes a former president look bad to another. Hence why it’s no more possible to make an “accurate” list of presidents from best to worst than it is to make an “accurate” list of songs from best to worst.

Thanks.

[Morley]

I have extreme doubt, though, that future historians will ever rate Trump highly. He is surely destined to be ranked as one of the most corrupt, dishonest and bigoted Presidents as long as there still exist honest, well-informed historians. I predict, if anything, that disdain for him and what he did and tried to do will only grow in time, even by conservative scholars of political science and history, perhaps even especially by conservative historians.

I agree. It’s hard to imagine his ranking improving very much.

[Morley]

Because criteria that might make a former president look good to one person might be the very same criteria that makes a former president look bad to another. Hence why it’s no more possible to make an “accurate” list of presidents from best to worst than it is to make an “accurate” list of songs from best to worst.

Shades, I’m not sure that the list isn’t accurate (or even “accurate”) for what it claims to be. It’s a ranking of US Presidents by professional historians. It doesn’t claim to be anything else.

If you presented me with a list of the best Rock and Roll songs, as ranked by professional musicians, I’d take the list for how it was intended: professionals venturing their opinions. I’d do the same for appliance repairmen ranking washing machine brands, or art historians ranking contemporary sculpture.

Is it the same as God speaking? Meh, probably not. Do I necessarily agree. Again, maybe not. But then, I could create my own ranking, as I’ve asked Ajax to do. Besides, those professional opinions might help me think about my own ideas in a different way.

[Gunnar]

Interesting take, Shades. I wonder why you put the word accurate in scare quotes.

Because criteria that might make a former president look good to one person might be the very same criteria that makes a former president look bad to another. Hence why it’s no more possible to make an “accurate” list of presidents from best to worst than it is to make an “accurate” list of songs from best to worst.

Dr. Shades, when you put it that way, I have to admit that your argument is not without merit. But it still seems that there is a significant amount of consensus between the disparate scholars who participated in that survey, from the most liberal to the most conservative, more, in fact, than I would have suspected. They seemed to agree pretty much on which presidents were the very best or the very worst at extremes of the rankings. I do think they tried their best to base their rankings on at least some agreed upon objective, factual criteria.

[Gunnar]

Shades, I’m not sure that the list isn’t accurate (or even “accurate”) for what it claims to be. It’s a ranking of US Presidents by professional historians. It doesn’t claim to be anything else.

If you presented me with a list of the best Rock and Roll songs, as ranked by professional musicians, I’d take the list for how it was intended: professionals venturing their opinions. I’d do the same for appliance repairmen ranking washing machine brands, or art historians ranking contemporary sculpture.

Is it the same as God speaking? Meh, probably not. Do I necessarily agree. Again, maybe not. But then, I could create my own ranking, as I’ve asked Ajax to do. Besides, those professional opinions might help me think about my own ideas in a different way.

Thanks, Morley. That's pretty much the way I look at it. I don't think these disparate scholars entirely lacked any valid, objective criteria on which they based their evaluations nor relevant and mutually respected knowledge and expertise.

[Res Ipsa]

Because criteria that might make a former president look good to one person might be the very same criteria that makes a former president look bad to another. Hence why it’s no more possible to make an “accurate” list of presidents from best to worst than it is to make an “accurate” list of songs from best to worst.

Shades, I’m not sure that the list isn’t accurate (or even “accurate”) for what it claims to be. It’s a ranking of US Presidents by professional historians. It doesn’t claim to be anything else.

If you presented me with a list of the best Rock and Roll songs, as ranked by professional musicians, I’d take the list for how it was intended: professionals venturing their opinions. I’d do the same for appliance repairmen ranking washing machine brands, or art historians ranking contemporary sculpture.

Is it the same as God speaking? Meh, probably not. Do I necessarily agree. Again, maybe not. But then, I could create my own ranking, as I’ve asked Ajax to do. Besides, those professional opinions might help me think about my own ideas in a different way.

I’m not sure that accuracy is an appropriate basis for critiquing the poll. The questions are highly subjective and produce some anomalous results. The one that jumped out at me is that Lincoln is among the Presidents rated most divisive and least divisive.

I think these kinds of surveys should omit recent Presidents.

[Manetho]

Shortly after Trump left office, a historian named Stephen Kantrowitz neatly summed up the reasons for considering him the worst: He combined "Andrew Johnson's fierce racism, Warren Harding's blithe corruption, George W. Bush's callow ineducability, James Buchanan's refusal to confront the mortal peril of the moment, and Nixon's disdain for the constitutional order. But incitement to insurrection is the special sauce."

[Gunnar]

Shortly after Trump left office, a historian named Stephen Kantrowitz neatly summed up the reasons for considering him the worst: He combined "Andrew Johnson's fierce racism, Warren Harding's blithe corruption, George W. Bush's callow ineducability, James Buchanan's refusal to confront the mortal peril of the moment, and Nixon's disdain for the constitutional order. But incitement to insurrection is the special sauce."

I certainly agree with Kantrowitz's summation! And even the Conservative, Republican, history and political science scholars involved in the OP's linked to survey rank Trump in the bottom 5, though not dead last. It is somewhat reassuring to know that there are still some Republican conservatives who are not yet completely devoid of intellectual integrity and reason.

[Dr. Sunstoned]

I am more inclined to believe your take on the relative accuracy of the list than Shades' take. I have extreme doubt, though, that future historians will ever rate Trump highly. He is surely destined to be ranked as one of the most corrupt, dishonest and bigoted Presidents as long as there still exist honest, well-informed historians. I predict, if anything, that disdain for him and what he did and tried to do will only grow in time, even by conservative scholars of political science and history, perhaps even especially by conservative historians. To believe otherwise one has to be as ignorant and blind as a bat, or even worse, as blind and historically and willfully ignorant as ajax.

I agree. Right now Trump is ranked dead last, lower than the crook Nixon. Given the time and space that history will provide, Trump will sink lower and lower as will his fawning sycophant followers.

[Some Schmo]

This thread reminds me of the whole GOAT conversation. It also reminds me of all the sports talk I consumed during this last football season, something I've never done before (not anywhere to the extent I did last year). You aren't listening to authoritative facts, you're listening to educated opinions. Ultimately, you are left with whatever your opinion was before you saw the list (or heard the opinion) and you can either be entertained or disgusted by it.

I've learned to insert unspoken words into people's comments, like when someone names someone or something "the GOAT" I replace that with "my favorite" because that is all they are really saying, even if they think they are saying more than that.

So yeah, I think it's wise to take this list for what it is: a compilation and averaging of educated opinions.