What makes a president great?

LARRY ANDERSON
Larry Anderson

All who pay attention have presidents they like or dislike based largely on how they impact on one’s personal life, the direction the country takes under his guidance, and how a president conforms to traditional and ideological perspectives.

It also matters how a president responds to national and international challenges.

Different citizens look for different things in leaders; therefore, it is hard to concretely measure principles that are abstract. The best yardstick will still provoke argument.

However, success is measurable by legislation signed, the degree of national protection advanced, and the manner in which personal and civil rights are interpreted and guaranteed.

Regard for the Constitution and democracy are paramount among those who have held office.

Alvin Stephen Felzenberg, who holds a Princeton doctorate in politics, understood the problems in measuring presidents’ success when he published The Leaders We Deserved (And a Few We Didn’t) in 2008.

Felzenberg’s goal was not to advance big name politicians on the basis of popularity polls or large, identifiable programs, but on overall performance within six categories that define leadership.

All require proof. The author provides it with specific examples, measurable statistical performance, deeds, laws passed, and how well the country progressed under the president economically, socially, and within the eyes of the world.

Felzenberg’s documentation runs nearly 40 pages. He did his homework.

The six categories measured were: Character, Vision, Competence, Economic Policy, Preserving and Extending Liberty, and Defense, National Security, and Foreign Policy.

You can see these are valid points of leadership; the problem is how to qualify them based on political acumen determined by the time in which the president lived, not now when political discourse thrives primarily on criticism.

Tough job.

Felzenberg succeeds, I think, because he relies on documentation that includes the president’s own papers rather than Felzenberg’s personal or political preference. He maintains objectivity. The result is a book about political measurement that isn’t political.

Just factual.

The result is both what one might expect — and surprising.

This is Felzenberg’s conclusion on the top 10 presidents with his No. 1 listed first: Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Theodore Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Franklin Roosevelt, Zachary Taylor, Ulysses S. Grant, William McKinley, Harry Truman, and John Kennedy.

Now, it might be easy to think that Franklin Roosevelt was a better president than Eisenhower, but remember, each was measured by six criteria, not one or two in which a president might have excelled. Top presidents scored well across the board.

You can imagine the difficulty in scoring well consistently in such broad and demanding areas while factoring in historical and economic events that may begin beyond any president’s control.

That is why only one president received a rating of 5, the highest number possible, in all six categories.

That leader was Abraham Lincoln who skillfully guided the country through the Civil War.

Felzenberg provides ample reasons for his conclusions, but I doubt that you are surprised. Lincoln is our most respected political icon.

What might be surprising is Calvin Coolidge’s ranking at 11th best prez, well above Thomas Jefferson, Woodrow Wilson, and James Madison.

Again, overall measurement matters, not fame or accomplishments outside the presidency. Jefferson, for example, was a much more rounded person than Coolidge, but Cal was a more accomplished politician while in office.

Fascinating.

Conversely, the five worst presidents were Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon, Franklin Pierce, Andrew Johnson, and James Buchanan. Three presidents weren’t evaluated at all due to the brevity of their service.

Few surprises there. Hoover was a terrible president incapable of managing what could have been a short term crisis, the Great Depression.

Nixon scored a measly 1 on character, a generous number in my opinion. He remains among my least favorite presidents, and this book added to the depth of that view.

Escalated in my view was JFK, Nixon’s victorious opponent in 1960. Downgraded in my regard were Andrew Jackson and Jimmy Carter. Carter scored high in character but low to average in everything else.

More recent and useful is Bill Clinton, whose ranking was average. Most of his distractions and limitations were self-inflicted. Felzenberg explains, but no in-depth explanation is required here. Some of Clinton’s limitations are still manifesting themselves in new scandals that may affect the next election.

The big mystery is how would Felzenberg rank Barack Obama?

I only know how I would, but that would be unfair before the conclusion of his tenure and before his complete legacy can be reflected upon.

Will history be kind?

Larry W. Anderson’s novel, I, Eugenius, is available on Amazon and at Maryville Daily Forum.