C-SPAN ranks presidents: Abe still on top, shocker at the bottom

Today is President's Day, that sacred holiday on the United States calendar devoted to honoring the births of the two most important presidents in the nation's history by selling bed linens and used automobiles at discount prices.

There was a time in not-too-distant American history when the country could afford to give President Washington and President Lincoln each their own holiday in many places -- Feb. 12 for Abe and Feb. 22 for GW.

But those fat days are gone. However today, as an added bonus, whether you buy new sheets or not, we're throwing in publication of the intriguing results from C-SPAN's latest ranking of past chief executives by leadership qualities.

It may not be a coincidence that the top five presidents of all time, as ranked by the cable channel's panel of 65 historians, all come from the era before video clips and television.

Would Abe still be No. 1 if we'd seen a million replays of that vintage Civil War footage of him hitting his burly head on the log cabin door?

Or would a bald George Washington be No. 2 if his powdered wig had gotten blown out of the presidential carriage in a Washington wind, revealing the shiny presidential pate?

Or FDR, TR and Harry Truman at Nos. 3, 4 and 5 if we'd heard audio tapes of their candid opinions of Henry Wallace, William Howard Taft and Strom Thurmond, respectively?

As evidence suggesting that absence does make the memory grow softer, Bill Clinton slipped up from No. 21 in 2000 to No. 15 now, Ronald Reagan up to 10 from 11 and Bush I from 20 to 18. His son, Bush II, remains mired at No. 36 since he became a former president nearly four weeks ago. Hasn't budged a notch.

Ulysses S. Grant, however, made a major leap from No. 33 to the 23d spot. Must be the beard.

On the other hand, despite a post-presidential record of building lots of houses, Jimmy Carter doesn't seem to be doing himself much good more recently, falling from 22 to 25 in the last nine years.

Other dropsies in the latest C-SPAN presidential rankings: FDR from No. 2 to 3, Millard Fillmore (35 to 37), Woodrow Wilson (6 to 9) and the real shocker, James Buchanan brings up the presidential bottom again, this time at No. 42, with Andrew Johnson still just above him. Their belittled presidencies bracketed Lincoln's, apparently a tough act to precede as well as follow.

The presidency of Buchanan, the only American bachelor president and, significantly, the only one from Pennsylvania, is consistently rated as the worst ever for his failure to avert the Civil War. And Barack Obama thinks he inherited trouble!

Historian Richard Norton Smith notes two things about the latest rankings of America's 42 ex-presidents: "the fluidity with which presidential reputations are judged and the difficulty of assessing any president who has only just recently left office."

“How we rank our presidents is, to a large extent, influenced by our own times," notes historian Edna Medford. "Today’s concerns shape our views of the past, be it in the area of foreign policy, managing the economy or human rights. The survey results also reinforce the idea that history is less about agreed-upon facts than about perceptions of who we are as a nation and how our leaders have either enhanced or tarnished that image we have of ourselves."

Lincoln, she adds, "continues to rank at the top in all categories because he is perceived to embody the nation’s avowed core values: integrity, moderation, persistence in the pursuit of honorable goals, respect for human rights, compassion; those who collect near the bottom are perceived as having failed to uphold those values.”

Makes you wonder how someday the panel will view President Palin.

As long as you're here, scroll down (or click the "Read more" line below) to see a fascinating video as the presidents' faces morph into each other, one after the other.

--Andrew Malcolm

Speaking of rankings, The Ticket is in Technorati's Top 65 global blogs. So register here for Twitter alerts on each new Ticket item. RSS feeds are available over here. And we're now on Kindle as well.

Photo credits: Getty Images (Abraham Lincoln with son Tad shortly before the president's assassination in 1865); Ulysses S. Grant and, bringing up the bottom ranking of 42 ex-presidents, James Buchanan.

Comments

[Sal B]

And why are we to believe that this ranking is "authortative"? Because it was done by CSPAN? What data, analyzed how, were used? Is it repeatable by any other organization?

It's just another example of how people are mesmerized by "rankings" of anything.

More BS to make a story out of something that isn't.

[Frederick Chapman]

I think George W is way overrated. I don't think those below him got them in foreign wars, lost over a trillion dollars rebuilding Iraq and paying for Blackwater.

[TD]

Buchanan and Johnson must've been axe murderers or something in order to be six places behind bush II. only thing can explain it.

[Ann]

Excuse me but shouldn't that be Andrew Jackson and not Johnson????

[OSweet]

History's too important to be left to historians.

[Michael]

If war criminal, compulsive liar, and borderline psychotic Ronald Reagan is really one of our ten best presidents, then we've done a really, really awful job of picking chief executives.

[Harold Reimann]

Since the war was Lincoln's and the Republican/Abolitionist Party's fault, I put Lincoln LAST! Washington first, Polk 2nd before Jefferson because Polk had to fight for Texas, California and the SW and also made a treaty with England for the NW. Jefferson only had to pay 15 million for the Louisiana Purchase. 4th - FDR, 5th - Truman (for the bomb), then Teddy Roosevelt, John Adams, James Madison & James Monroe (for the Constitution and Monroe Doctrine). Franklin Pierce , James Buchanan and Herbert Hoover should not be docked for living in very difficult times. Andrew Jackson would round out my top 10.

How Kennedy, Wilson, Eisenhower, Lydon Johnson and Carter got so high is because of liberal barstards.

[Nicolas Martin]

"Lincoln is theology, not historiology. He is a faith, he is a church, he is a religion, and he has his own priests and acolytes, most of whom have a vested interest in [him] and who are passionately opposed to anybody telling the truth about him."

~ Lerone Bennett, Jr., author of "Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream"

[Teresa]

Ann, I totally agree. Andrew Jackson was the single worst president that the U.S. has ever seen.

[Richard Clark]

Screw Andrew Jackson, he should be last because of genocide of Cherokee Nation. Woodrow Wilson should also rot in Hell becuase he was a racist and supressed anarchists and socialists during WW I !

[brooklyn]

This study is absurd.

Partisans pretending to be objective historians.

Bill Clinton ran an Administration that made it policy to lie about the genocide in Rwanda, ignored the rise of Radical Islamic Terrorism even after it attacked the WTC in 1993, gave Federal Loan Guarantees to Enron, peddled pardons to Marc Rich, and even raised taxation to the point which created a Recession in 2000.

The Clinton Administration's invasion of Somalia was a disaster, and they even propped up a despot in Haiti.

The Clintons were so bad in the White House, the American Public voted to give the GOP the Majority in the House for the first time in 40 years.

The Clinton Administration was a corrupt failure, including their attempt to appease North Korea and the killer named Arafat.

It is clear this little C-SPAN Study is not serious.

[Carol]

Posted by Harold:

"then Teddy Roosevelt, John Adams, James Madison & James Monroe (for the Constitution and Monroe Doctrine). "

I was watching a program on Presidents today on the History Channel. Did you know that John Quincy Adams wrote the "Monroe" Doctrine while he was Secretary of State? Maybe you'll now want to rank JQA up a notch or two.

[mw]

Uh, excuse me Reiman, but Eisenhower was a Republican.

[Canadiandy]

Ulysses S. Grant from 33 to 23 in a year? Hmmm, can you say unreliable? So what did Grant posthumously do to deserve such an improvement?

Goes to prove this is just more biased Bush-Bashing from our leftist media. And why did Clinton improve? Perhaps because people forgot he sexually exploited an employee and then lied about it. But the liberal media seem to forget that conveniently.

Media malpractice continues and their own numbers prove it.

[steve rodriguez]

Did they rank Pres. Obama 44th?

[steve rodriguez]

Nicolas Martin - Don't play the race card at Lincoln's expense!!!!!!!!!!!

[steve rodriguez]

Lincoln freed the slaves!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Who the hell cares what his motives were!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[steve rodriguez]

The Blacks of Lincoln's day loved and respected him!!!
It would be 100 years before anyone even came close to impacting Black America like Lincoln did!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[CanYouBelieveTheseGuys]

Canadiandy, care to explain how U.S. Grant jumping up in the rankings shows "Bush bashing?" Both of his ranks (33/23) are between the two Bushes, so his movement had no effect on theirs. Also, this movement wasn't "in a year." The last ranking was done in 2000. And finally, not sure whether a panel of historians qualifies as the "leftist media." Not that there's any such thing; just take a look at who the press has been hailing as the "winners and losers" of the stimulus debate, and compare them with the movement in their public opinion polling. The press is singing Republican praises right now at the same time that Americans are getting disgusted with them.

Brooklyn, your cheap shots on Clinton are particularly laughable after you bemoan the "partisans pretending to be objective historians." Every item you mention is oversimplified, and many are demonstrably factually inaccurate. Taxed us into a recession in 2000? Sorry, but that very minor recession was caused the proper way, through monetary policy designed to cool off an overheated economy. Even so, including 2000, real income growth across all income segments was 4 times higher than under W...and twice as high as under the 12 years of Reagan/H.W. And the "lies" about Rawanda surely pale in comparison with the lies about Iraq, no? Marc Rich...Scooter Libby? Your "ignored terrorism" thing is just pure fiction, and let's not mention all the warnings the Bush admin had. Enron's federal loans were a bipartisan operation from congress, and certainly it's hard to blame them considering the depth of Enron's deceit. Arafat was the biggest force for a real peace in the whole region, and his death caused instant instability...oh, and certainly it's not like he was killing more than the Israeli side; they're pretty much always at war! And finally, you honestly want to take issue with Clinton's handling of N. Korea!? Look at your guy! In short, everything you said was crap.

[Harold Reimann]

In deciding the top 10 I rate the whole life of the man. J Q Adams was a thorn in the side of Polk - against the Mexican War - for the slaves. Yes, I knew he was responsible for the Monroe Doctrine. What he did after his presidency more than cancelled what he did before.

Eisenhower must have been a little Republican window dressing on the liberal historians' part. I didn't put Reagan in the top 10 because all he won was Granada and not letting the marines in Lebanon have ammo in their weapons more than cancelled that out.

Jackson stopped a secession movement in South Carolina in 1932. Does anyone know that! He sent General Winfield Scott down there. Scott did the job. As far as the Cherokees are concerned, he should have sent them all the way to Mexico.

[Kevin Kvas]

wow.
Frederick Chapman
TD
Michael
and
Harold Reimann
all of you and all whom you associate with are blinded liberal fools. You cannot seriously argue for a minute that Bush was the worst President ever. He would have been a great president, had he been in office in the 90's or any part of Pre-Civil War America. He was simply a man who was flooded with too much for anyone to handle. I would have loved to see your Saviour to be in the place Bush was. Obama would have done worse by at least ten times. Even now he is failing. Don't even dare pin that on Bush, either, because Bush's issues can easily be traced back to the ignorance of the Clinton Presidency.
Harold, minus the Eisenhower mention and the suggestion of Lincoln being last, you are somewhat right. But, for the others, i don't see how you can begin to say you are a true American.

[Philly]

The best thing about this year's presidential ranking is the hilarious reactions it's generated -- like comments from Harold, Nicolas and Brooklyn.

[bruce]

Please...read and STUDY history...Lincoln did not free the slaves...he freed the South's slaves as a way to stop Great Britain and France from recognizing the South as an independent nation and to try to put pressure on the Southern states. He did not plan nor did not free the slaves in the North.

As to how great he was...his war time control of "civil liberties" and democracy should rank him no higher than 10th but not as low as in Harlod Reinman's position of last (see above comment Feb. 16, 11:29 a.m.).

As to the moronic statement by the extreme leftist, Michael (Feb. 16, 11:22 a.m.), above, none of the three categories he mentioned would apply to any sane discussion of Ronald Reagan who will probably move up to 6-8th place.

Carter deserves to drop further to the forties and GW will move up into the low 20s over time.

As one of many legitimate trained historians from the University of Liberal California, I find it interesting that anyone who really knows historians would think that 62 historians could agree on anything. Look at the field of economics...Keynesians are still revered though proven wrong on all facets time and time again...just as they will when the Obama joke collapses. But then again, the "stimulus" bill was not about stimulating anything but debt.

Seriously, this is all humorous, since we all know the "all knowing and all seeing" Obama is already number one right now...forget that George Washington was a Founding Father and began the gentleman's un-written two term limit (violated by another power control freak FDR) and set the tone for all 44 Presidents.

The reason why Grant went up...is because things like this ranking should never be done seriously until 100 years after their time in office...that way you get rid of present day "agendas".

[Richard]

Check out the ratings as presented by Time magazine in 1950 during Truman's administration. They had six greats, the first 3, FDR, Teddy and Wilson. They had 2 failures, Grant and Harding. What has changed in the past half century to alter the ratings so drastically?

[Tim Cleary]

How can Bush NOT be judge the worst president in US history? I've seen the list of others and the reasons. Can a president be judged amongst the worst only because he had the misfortune of dying soon? Can two or three biggoted internal political policies compare with the general internal and external chaos caused to the American state and its people by Barbara Bush's baby boy? Why is the American media and blogger, et al. being so kind to this horror of a person and cesspool of an administration that he has seen over for 8, terrible, long years? I am not an expert on American history, but how can any of these other incompetents compare with the recent, willfully, incompetent occupant of the White House?

[cemmcs]

Grant was a great anti-racist President. He deserves a higher ranking for that.

[lee tabin]

kennedy was dashing to be sure, but he was ineffective in the very short time he served and his ranking should be "incomplete." On the one hand he botched the Cuban situation, but on the other hand he lowered taxes.

LBJ did lots of damage and accordingly should have a very low ranking but he was neither weak nor unqualified. Compared to Jimmy Carter he was Abe Lincoln.

Any ranking that doesn't have Carter down at the bottom is not a sensible ranking. His moronic comments since he left office have been a confirmation of his incompetence. he is responsible for the mideast mess as he allowed the Shah to fall to a regime many times worse, and Camp David which he deserves some slight credit for was actually agreed to in principle by Begin and Sadat before Carter became involved.

His comment about racism being the major factor in objections to Obama's health plan was beyond stupid.

[Mark Ladenson]

With all due respect to the panel of 65 historians who contributed to this C-SPAN 2009 Historians Presidential Leadership Survey, I would urge them to go back to the history books regarding the Presidency of Rutherford B. Hayes, the Compromise of 1877 that enabled him to become President, the enormously harmful consequences that Compromise of 1877 had in particular for the end
of Reconstruction, and the ensuing rise of Jim Crow and its very harmful effects in general that it had on Blacks in this country from 1877 through 1965. In terms of moral authority and equal justice for all, I would urge the panel of 65 historians to rate the Presidency of Rutherford B. Hayes at least in those two categories as our worst or next to worst U.S. President., right
next to President Andrew Johnson.

[Craig234]

How is the 'bottom a shocker' as the headline says?

[james bigley]

Uhm....George Washington NEVER wore a wig.......writer needs to get his facts straight.