Awaz Apni

Odds and ends remaining from the Presidents for the Fourth series. First, I enjoyed Alex Massie's version of overrated and underrated -- from a while back, but I hadn't seen it before.  Massie is championing Cleveland, Coolidge, and Harding to join Grant as presidents who are moving up.  We'll see! I said I'd say something about Ronald Reagan.  Well,  (as he would say)... Four of the postwar presidents have been the subjects of post-presidential campaigns to improve their reputations:  Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter, who did it themselves, and John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, who had it done on their behalf.  Apparently, it works; I think they've all achieved higher ratings than they deserve, to varying degrees.  Nixon's campaign basically died with him.  I expect Carter's to do so as well...Carter's campaign is a bit different than the other three, because it's focused on proving himself a Great Man, as opposed to having been a good president, a...

Andrew Jackson's stock is falling.  New Deal historians loved Jackson, which makes sense in the same way that it makes sense that they loved Woodrow Wilson.  As the Democratic Party moved away from its traditional defense of bigotry, however, loving Wilson and Jackson has become far more problematic for newer generations of historians.  Jackson used to be a great president, finishing comfortably in the top ten in these sorts of surveys ; Siena College now has him in the next tier down, at #14, which is consistent with where others have placed him recently.  In Siena's categories, Jackson scores very high on Leadership (#5), Party Leadership (#2), and Executive Ability (#6); he's at the low end on Ability to Compromise (#38), the economy (#28), and low on Integrity and Intelligence (#23, on each).  Lyndon Johnson has settled in more or less in the same area.  He's 16th in Siena's survey;.in the fourteen such surveys in wikipedia's entry, he's as high as 10t...

Andrew Jackson's stock is falling.  New Deal historians loved Jackson, which makes sense in the same way that it makes sense that they loved Woodrow Wilson.  As the Democratic Party moved away from its traditional defense of bigotry, however, loving Wilson and Jackson has become far more problematic for newer generations of historians.  Jackson used to be a great president, finishing comfortably in the top ten in these sorts of surveys ; Siena College now has him in the next tier down, at #14, which is consistent with where others have placed him recently.  In Siena's categories, Jackson scores very high on Leadership (#5), Party Leadership (#2), and Executive Ability (#6); he's at the low end on Ability to Compromise (#38), the economy (#28), and low on Integrity and Intelligence (#23, on each).  Lyndon Johnson has settled in more or less in the same area.  He's 16th in Siena's survey;.in the fourteen such surveys in wikipedia's entry, he's as high as 10t...

I did overrated, so I guess it's time to talk about underrated presidents in the new Siena College survey experts. Once again, I'll just by looking at the other similar surveys.  Who does worse by Siena than they do elsewhere? Start with Ronald Reagan, who Siena has at #18 (he was at 17 last time around for them, in 2002)..  Reagan's been doing a bit better than that in other surveys...he's been around 10th in most of these things over the last fifteen years.  Siena has William McKinley at #21, about half a dozen spots lower than the other surveys.  Neither Siena nor last year's CSPAN survey like Rutherford Hayes very much (#31 and #33); Hayes usually comes in mid-20s.  That one seems like the flip side of moving Grant up, no?  And Siena is down on Benjamin Harrison, placing him at #34 while most others have him at or above #30.  Who do I think is underrated?  Well, I've already said that I think putting Washington at #4 is awful -- comparisons ar...

I did overrated, so I guess it's time to talk about underrated presidents in the new Siena College survey experts. Once again, I'll just by looking at the other similar surveys.  Who does worse by Siena than they do elsewhere? Start with Ronald Reagan, who Siena has at #18 (he was at 17 last time around for them, in 2002)..  Reagan's been doing a bit better than that in other surveys...he's been around 10th in most of these things over the last fifteen years.  Siena has William McKinley at #21, about half a dozen spots lower than the other surveys.  Neither Siena nor last year's CSPAN survey like Rutherford Hayes very much (#31 and #33); Hayes usually comes in mid-20s.  That one seems like the flip side of moving Grant up, no?  And Siena is down on Benjamin Harrison, placing him at #34 while most others have him at or above #30.  Who do I think is underrated?  Well, I've already said that I think putting Washington at #4 is awful -- comparisons ar...

Happy Independence Day, everyone! Two presidents fell more than five spots in the new Siena College survey : George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter, to a dismal 39th and 32nd, respectively. Well deserved!  Terrible presidents, both.  I'm not sure that they're in exactly the correct places, but both were, at least in my view, clearly failed presidents -- two people who never should have been in that office, and were quickly and decisively overwhelmed by the job.  This does bring up a point in rating presidents, and I should make my own point of view clear; to me, what we're looking at is the ability of presidents to do the job.  It's pretty obvious that partisan Democrats, and ideological liberals, would prefer Jimmy Carter as president to George W. Bush -- or, to put it another way, would have voted for Carter over Gerald Ford in 1976, and voted for Carter over Ronald Reagan, even if they were certain that Ford and Reagan were more capable of doing the job of president than...

Happy Independence Day, everyone! Two presidents fell more than five spots in the new Siena College survey : George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter, to a dismal 39th and 32nd, respectively. Well deserved!  Terrible presidents, both.  I'm not sure that they're in exactly the correct places, but both were, at least in my view, clearly failed presidents -- two people who never should have been in that office, and were quickly and decisively overwhelmed by the job.  This does bring up a point in rating presidents, and I should make my own point of view clear; to me, what we're looking at is the ability of presidents to do the job.  It's pretty obvious that partisan Democrats, and ideological liberals, would prefer Jimmy Carter as president to George W. Bush -- or, to put it another way, would have voted for Carter over Gerald Ford in 1976, and voted for Carter over Ronald Reagan, even if they were certain that Ford and Reagan were more capable of doing the job of president than...

Oh, Ta-Nehisi Coates is gonna like this...guess which president's stock has improved the most since the last Siena College survey?  That's right, it's Ulysses S. Grant.  Grant was close to the bottom in the first three Siena polls (1982, 1990, 1994), beating out just three presidents each time.  In the 2002 edition, he moved up the 35th (of 42).  Now, he's escaped the ranks of the failed presidents entirely, rising to a respectable 26th.  This matches what other surveys have been showing.  The very first such study, conducted in 1948 by Arthur Schlesinger, Sr., had Grant second-to-last, and up until recently he was invariably a bottom-five choice.  Now, with Siena joining the crowd, he's a mid-pack president.  Siena's respondents docked him for his executive appointments and executive ability, and didn't really give him strong marks anywhere, with it all averaging out to 26th place. I have to admit that I probably know more about the historiogra...

Oh, Ta-Nehisi Coates is gonna like this...guess which president's stock has improved the most since the last Siena College survey?  That's right, it's Ulysses S. Grant.  Grant was close to the bottom in the first three Siena polls (1982, 1990, 1994), beating out just three presidents each time.  In the 2002 edition, he moved up the 35th (of 42).  Now, he's escaped the ranks of the failed presidents entirely, rising to a respectable 26th.  This matches what other surveys have been showing.  The very first such study, conducted in 1948 by Arthur Schlesinger, Sr., had Grant second-to-last, and up until recently he was invariably a bottom-five choice.  Now, with Siena joining the crowd, he's a mid-pack president.  Siena's respondents docked him for his executive appointments and executive ability, and didn't really give him strong marks anywhere, with it all averaging out to 26th place. I have to admit that I probably know more about the historiogra...

Two hundred and thirty-four years ago, if I'm doing my math correctly, a bunch of politicians got together in Philadelphia and decided to start a new country.  So, on this patriotic weekend, I think it's fitting to celebrate the Americans who have involved themselves in politics and public affairs: the state legislators and the convention delegates, the judges and the congressional staff, the campaign managers and the mayors, the activists and the cabinet secretaries.  The great Americans who served their nation in Congress without becoming president...just to pick a few of my favorites: Ted Kennedy, Bob Dole, Hubert Humphrey, Tip O'Neill. Oh, and the presidents.  And what could be more fun and frivolous for the Fourth of July weekend than spending a little time with the brand new Siena College poll of "presidential scholars, historians, and political scientists" ranking the presidents ( via Political Wire).  So I'm going to write a few items just looking in...

Two hundred and thirty-four years ago, if I'm doing my math correctly, a bunch of politicians got together in Philadelphia and decided to start a new country.  So, on this patriotic weekend, I think it's fitting to celebrate the Americans who have involved themselves in politics and public affairs: the state legislators and the convention delegates, the judges and the congressional staff, the campaign managers and the mayors, the activists and the cabinet secretaries.  The great Americans who served their nation in Congress without becoming president...just to pick a few of my favorites: Ted Kennedy, Bob Dole, Hubert Humphrey, Tip O'Neill. Oh, and the presidents.  And what could be more fun and frivolous for the Fourth of July weekend than spending a little time with the brand new Siena College poll of "presidential scholars, historians, and political scientists" ranking the presidents ( via Political Wire).  So I'm going to write a few items just looking in...

Matt Yglesias uses the turnover in the office of Senate President pro tempore to complain about that the current presidential succession plan is both foolish (#3 after the president is someone in a ceremonial role that you qualify for by being superannuated?), and perhaps unconstitutional.  Fortunately, there's a plan already drafted.  The Continuity of Government Commission -- a bunch of big names from past Congresses and administrations, with political scientists Tom Mann and Norm Ornstein as the major players -- released their report on the presidency one year ago.  While their main focus was, as the title of the commission suggests, focused on the dangers of a catastrophic terrorist attack. The Mann/Ornstein report suggests removing Congress from the line of succession.  Furthermore, they also want to remove the tail end of the cabinet, limiting cabinet-level succession to State, Defense, Justice, and Treasury (in that order).  After that, the commission su...

Matt Yglesias uses the turnover in the office of Senate President pro tempore to complain about that the current presidential succession plan is both foolish (#3 after the president is someone in a ceremonial role that you qualify for by being superannuated?), and perhaps unconstitutional.  Fortunately, there's a plan already drafted.  The Continuity of Government Commission -- a bunch of big names from past Congresses and administrations, with political scientists Tom Mann and Norm Ornstein as the major players -- released their report on the presidency one year ago.  While their main focus was, as the title of the commission suggests, focused on the dangers of a catastrophic terrorist attack. The Mann/Ornstein report suggests removing Congress from the line of succession.  Furthermore, they also want to remove the tail end of the cabinet, limiting cabinet-level succession to State, Defense, Justice, and Treasury (in that order).  After that, the commission su...