Ranking Presidents

I recently came across several more evaluations/rankings of Presidents.  They were similar, but did have some differences.

This, I think, would be quite a task.  The very best and very worst would be easy or at least easier.  Differentiating between, say, Truman and Eisenhower would be tough.  And the more I learn/older I get, my views change, too.  For instance, I'm no longer a big fan of T. Roosevelt--he was a progressive who planted the early seeds of Big Government and, for all of his popularity, he was an egotistical jerk.

My first two, in this order, are Lincoln and Washington, with no likely rivals.  I think my reasons have been made abundantly clear.  (That some, just a couple, of rankings didn't have Abe and George as the top two befuddles me.  Such rankings immediately lose their legitimacy with me.)  As noted, I like Truman and Eisenhower.  John Adams (Daddy) and Reagan are in the top eleven or twelve, too.  I also think a lot of Coolidge and not just because he is also a Lord Jeff.  For me, unless faced with situations like those countenanced by Lincoln and Washington, mostly less is more.  Madison and Monroe deserve some recognition as well.

The absolute worst include Buchanan, Carter, Harding, and A. Johnson, maybe a few others.  I'd have to separate my prejudices to try to be fair to Nixon (I don't like him), Clinton (I don't like him), Obama (I don't like him), L. Johnson (I don't like him), and a few others.  Perhaps naively, I still think that character matters.  (For instance, I can't be convinced to vote for "the lesser of two evils."  "Evil" is "evil.")  I'm not sure the current historians/political scientists (mostly teachers/authors) separate their political beliefs from their personal views in their evaluations.  How else to explain their perpetually low ranking of Coolidge and high ranking of Kennedy?  (One ranking had JFK in the top half dozen citing only two assets, both of which made me laugh.  He was assassinated and he was the first Roman Catholic President.)

We can eliminate W. H. Harrison and J. Garfield, who were in office far too short to evaluate.  But how to tell the difference between Van Buren, Fillmore, Cleveland (actually pretty decent), Taft (also not too bad), Bush (Daddy), etc.?

I'm not a fan at all of Wilson, a racist/bigot besides being an arrogant progressive.  Jackson is very problematic for a lot of reasons.  If we count only Jefferson's first four years, he'd be in the top five.  His second term wasn't so hot.

I suppose, though, I'd have to define "great."  Does it mean the "best," as in doing the most good?  Or, as I might have to grudgingly admit, does it mean "most influential," as in changing things for better or worse, regardless?  I think I've noted before this would include F. Roosevelt, not at all a favorite of mine.  The two lists would be different, other than the top two.  Then toss in contemporary popularity.  How does that affect, say, J. Q. Adams?


It's not as simple a task as one might think, as in cherry-picking one President and rating "good" or "bad."