This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1oregonobsessionz
On Presidents Day 2009, C-SPAN released the results of its second Historians Survey of Presidential Leadership, in which a cross-section of 65 presidential historians ranked the 42 former occupants of the White House on ten attributes of leadership.
C-SPAN report here.
I don't understand how William Henry Harrison ranked 4th from the bottom, when he survived only one month in office. Perhaps they considered that, in that brief time, he didn't have an opportunity to cause as much damage as Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and Pierce did in their full terms?
C-SPAN report here.
I don't understand how William Henry Harrison ranked 4th from the bottom, when he survived only one month in office. Perhaps they considered that, in that brief time, he didn't have an opportunity to cause as much damage as Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and Pierce did in their full terms?
2Lunar
Perhaps they considered that, in that brief time, he didn't have an opportunity to cause as much damage as Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and Pierce did in their full terms?
Looking over the list, I somewhat doubt that "causing damage" was a predominant criterion for lowering a president's rank among the historians surveyed.
It would also be interesting to see what those "ten attributes of leadership" are. Going by the list, it can't be anything good (except maybe for "are you an oft quoted founding father?"). And from a constitutional standpoint, the office of the president wasn't intended to such a high office as it has become. Being commander in chief of the armed forces (only during wartime), appointing other officials to office, and having the veto pen doesn't necessarily translate into a king-like "leader of the nation." The president is supposed to be a pencil pusher.
Anyway, good thread to plug Ivan Eland's Recarving Rushmore: Ranking the Presidents on Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty (damn you, touchstones) where he refrains from ranking them on things like glorified warmongering.
Looking over the list, I somewhat doubt that "causing damage" was a predominant criterion for lowering a president's rank among the historians surveyed.
It would also be interesting to see what those "ten attributes of leadership" are. Going by the list, it can't be anything good (except maybe for "are you an oft quoted founding father?"). And from a constitutional standpoint, the office of the president wasn't intended to such a high office as it has become. Being commander in chief of the armed forces (only during wartime), appointing other officials to office, and having the veto pen doesn't necessarily translate into a king-like "leader of the nation." The president is supposed to be a pencil pusher.
Anyway, good thread to plug Ivan Eland's Recarving Rushmore: Ranking the Presidents on Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty (damn you, touchstones) where he refrains from ranking them on things like glorified warmongering.
3nperrin
Looking over the list, I somewhat doubt that "causing damage" was a predominant criterion for lowering a president's rank among the historians surveyed.
Indeed. I like this version of the ranking, myself, which puts William Henry Harrison first: "Died before he could do _any_ damage. No other President has made so noble a sacrifice."
Indeed. I like this version of the ranking, myself, which puts William Henry Harrison first: "Died before he could do _any_ damage. No other President has made so noble a sacrifice."
6jjwilson61
I read another news article on this that I can't find now, but two of the attributes mentioned were foreign affairs, where GWB got dead last, and the economy, where GWB was beat to the bottom only by Hoover.
7oregonobsessionz
>6 jjwilson61: The C-SPAN article has links where you can rank each president by individual leadership characteristics, including international relations and economic policy.
