Best and Worst

Alex Massie wants to know who the most overrated and underrated U.S. presidents are. The trick with this sort of thing is you need a metric of "rated." Ross, for example, says Ike is underrated but my impression is that at this point Ike is already very highly rated (every foreign policy conference seems to open with a discussion of the need for a new Solarium project.

I'll use the 2005 Wall Street Journal poll of scholars as my baseline, and say that Eisenhower's at number eight so he's not a good candidate for underrated. I think Grant is undervalued at 29, Carter is undervalued at 34, and John Quincy Adams undervalued at 25. Overrated on the list are Kennedy at 15, McKinley at 14, and Reagan at 6. There seems in general to be a slant in favor of presidents who were very successful partisan politicians (even guys from long ago like Jackson and McKinley) and thereby entered the pantheon of "historical figures who present-day figures sometimes mention in a positive light" and an undervaluation of people who faced difficult political circumstances beyond their control and nonetheless did some good things.

Comments

Andrew Jackson was totally evil dude, and gets across the board good grades. What's the deal with that?

Posted by Christopher Colaninno | April 29, 2008 12:33 PM

In certain moods I am kind of willing to see Nixon as underrated. It wears off pretty quick, though.

A more interesting question (to me) is which presidents have the biggest swing between being perceived as under- or overrated depending on the ideological orientation of the perceiver. Reagan probably scores high on that one, for example.

Posted by guyx | April 29, 2008 12:33 PM

I don't know if Polk is overrated or underrated-- but given that he's rated ninth, it's a bit weird that my knowledge of what he did is about zero.

Posted by MattF | April 29, 2008 12:35 PM

Polk is totally underrated. He should be top 5. Any dude who gets everything he wants done in 4 years and calls it quits is a total badass.

Posted by Anonymous | April 29, 2008 12:35 PM

Matt,

I am surprised to see you omit Kennedy on your overrated list, given your past posts on his administration.

Posted by freddiemac | April 29, 2008 12:37 PM

Most overrated of all time: Bill Clinton. Kennedy a close second. Underrated in some ways: Nixon or LBJ.

Four most overrated things in life: lobster, champagne, anal sex and picnics. (Need to explain to your mother-in-law with a straight face then take a sip of your drink.)

Unrelated news story about Petey.

Posted by Peter K. | April 29, 2008 12:37 PM

LBJ is underrated. Sure Vietnam was a doozy of a mistake, but on domestic stuff, that boy sure knew how to seize the moment.

Posted by Petey | April 29, 2008 12:37 PM

On your last point, I agree. Popularity & likeability deeply affect perception of effectiveness. TV-age presidents have an unfair advantage because we come to believe that we know them so much more intimately, enhancing the popularity effect.

Reagan at 6 is a joke. Jefferson, also, is too high. LBJ is too low at 18 but that could be a generational thing. Clinton, too, is too low. I'd have Lincoln and FDR switch spots; Polk is in a perfect spot.

Posted by dry_fish | April 29, 2008 12:41 PM

It'll be interesting to read such ratings in 10>20 years. You'll have some sort of Norquist driven campaign to propel Bush into the top 5 (or higher) with arm twisting, threats and inducements. Pollsters, publishers and owners of media will be brought to heel (or else............)

Posted by steve duncan | April 29, 2008 12:41 PM

Most overrated of all time: Bill Clinton. Kennedy a close second. Underrated in some ways: Nixon or LBJ.
Four most overrated things in life: lobster, champagne, anal sex and picnics....

Is this some kind of actual reference to Christopher Hitchens, or are you just stealing his material?

Posted by James Gary | April 29, 2008 12:41 PM

MattY's omission of JFK as "overrated" wasn't really an omission. It was more that JFK is overrated by implication: the otherwise underrated presidents, if they were rated correctly, would likely bounce JFK downwards into an appropriate spot.

Posted by Tyro | April 29, 2008 12:42 PM

One tires of Americans' endless fascination with the relative historical leader-ness of their Great Leaders. The main poison residing within American presidential politics is this over-wrought conception of the POTUS as the Single Most Important Person of His Time in the World, which only ever reinforces the not-very-overrated notion of the 8-year principate we're currently living with. The gravitas with which we weigh the different candidates' Qualifications to Assume the Awesome Mantle of the World's Most Important Person is long since tragicomic. Has anyone checked to see whether George W. Bush has or has not pushed the office further toward impotence on the world stage? Since 9/11, has he been dictating the direction of things, or haplessly reacting to it?

Posted by Bill | April 29, 2008 12:42 PM

What's odd is how quickly Reagan has risen. When he was in office, I'm pretty sure no survey of historians (college professors) would have ranked him as even average. He was just as unpopular among intellectuals as Bush is.

Other than that, Matt's rankings remind me of the (Patriot's view of) the NFL draft. The best values are found in picks 25-40, while the top 15 are overrated and overpriced.

Posted by Jim | April 29, 2008 12:44 PM

"Four most overrated things in life: lobster, champagne, anal sex and picnics ... Unrelated news story about Petey."

I'm quite pleased to be grouped with the other things you dislike.

If I'm as good as lobster, champagne, anal sex and picnics, well then, I'm a happy Petey.

Posted by Petey | April 29, 2008 12:44 PM

We wouldn't even have to pay attention to this poll if we had an NFL-style playoff system instead of the stupid BCS.

Also, champagne is not overrated, it's just not used casually enough.

Posted by Delicious Pundit | April 29, 2008 12:47 PM

Grant underrated at 29!? Sure he did a passable job with Reconstruction, but he tanked the economy and ran one of the most corrupt administrations in American history.

As for Polk, yeah, he did everything in a neat four years. But you think George Bush is bad? Polk used a diplomatic slight as a cause for war and ended up stealing most of Mexico.

Posted by Rusty | April 29, 2008 12:47 PM

Four most overrated things in life: lobster, champagne, anal sex and picnics....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh. I don't know. Try all four at the same time and maybe they'll poll a little higher as a group.

Posted by steve duncan | April 29, 2008 12:48 PM

This article makes a pretty convincing case that Nixon was the best president of all time when it comes to environmental issues.

Posted by Rob Mac | April 29, 2008 12:49 PM

Actually, James Earl Carter is greatly overrated at 34. Only the current incumbent is worse. And now, this cocksucking fucktard has become the worst ex-president in history. It was unfortunate that, during his visit to Sderot he didn't get hit with a Qassem, which would have been an appropriate end for this foul piece of manure.

Posted by SLC | April 29, 2008 12:49 PM

LBJ is underrated. Sure Vietnam was a doozy of a mistake, but on domestic stuff, that boy sure knew how to seize the moment.

A doozy of a mistake? Vietnam makes Iraq look like a garden party, and LBJ lied the US into massive escalation. Everything that makes Iraq a disaster applies several times over to the Vietnam conflict.

Posted by TheOtherCyrus | April 29, 2008 12:49 PM

Speaking as a het male, I'd say anal sex is overrated but undersupplied.

And I'd like to convince the het females out there that anal sex is vastly underrated.

We now return you to your boring old politics wonk comments thread.

Posted by r€nato | April 29, 2008 12:49 PM

These historical rankings are always tilted toward presidents who did "big things," even if they were bad things. So Wilson, who was a disaster, is rated above Coolidge, who was a fine president. I'd say Harding was better than Wilson, too. Yeah, he was corrupt, but he undid a lot of Wilson's damage.

Posted by too many steves | April 29, 2008 12:50 PM

Polk did a lot of stuff.

I think MY is hitting the was Napoleon great question. If one means by great 'force for good' then probably not, but if one means someone who couldn't be ignored and rearranged his world a great deal, a force that must be reckoned with, the answer is obviously yes. It would seem that the historians in question are using the second method.

Posted by j mct | April 29, 2008 12:51 PM

This notion of anal sex being overrated. Could anyone point me to the right encomiums for orienting myself on this important matter, so I can compare to my own experiences. Thanks.

Posted by Bill | April 29, 2008 12:53 PM

More information about James K. Polk can be found on the Internet, specifically via this video of a cheerful They Might Be Giants song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StTiCU_fqCg

Posted by SMK | April 29, 2008 12:57 PM

I teach US history and I think that makes me very critical of these dudes--I have a hard time identifying underrated presidents. Much easier to see overrated ones:

Washington. Not my #1, though he looks better as I get older. Unanimously elected generalissimo, anyone?

G. W. Bush. #19?? Are you kidding? This guy is bottom-tier, no question about it. Think of the damage.

Reagan. End of cold war or no, he doesn't crack the top 10. His administration was largely destructive and highly corrupt.

Cleveland. Not much discussed, but somehow he ends up at #12 in the poll. Ridiculous. He responded with callous indifference to the depression of the 1890s, the second worst in US history. He also sicced the army on striking workers in Illinois, in defiance of the governor there. He was really bad. (Van Buren was also a model of inaction during the depression that started in 1837. But since he comes in at #27, it's hard to get real exercised about it.)

Polk. #9 is fair if you like imperialism. If we're talking about significance rather than quality, then it's hard to argue with the ranking.

Here's my candidate for an underrated president: Zachary Taylor. He should get the love that's coming Grant's way. Grant's stock has gone up because, despite his corruption and incompetence, he (kind of) stood up for civil rights during Reconstruction. But Taylor was unexpectedly tough on the southern slaveocrats while he was president, when the top issue was whether slavery would get extended to the territories that Polk had conquered in the Mexican War (in which Taylor had been a general).

Posted by Doug | April 29, 2008 12:57 PM

Actually, a Hillary murder-suicide with McCain would work.

Posted by hillaryisthedevil | April 29, 2008 12:59 PM

I teach US history and I think that makes me very critical of these dudes--I have a hard time identifying underrated presidents. Much easier to see overrated ones:

Washington. Not my #1, though he looks better as I get older. Unanimously elected generalissimo, anyone?

G. W. Bush. #19?? Are you kidding? This guy is bottom-tier, no question about it. Think of the damage.

Reagan. End of cold war or no, he doesn't crack the top 10. His administration was largely destructive and highly corrupt.

Cleveland. Not much discussed, but somehow he ends up at #12 in the poll. Ridiculous. He responded with callous indifference to the depression of the 1890s, the second worst in US history. He also sicced the army on striking workers in Illinois, in defiance of the governor there. He was really bad. (Van Buren was also a model of inaction during the depression that started in 1837. But since he comes in at #27, it's hard to get real exercised about it.)

Polk. #9 is fair if you like imperialism. If we're talking about significance rather than quality, then it's hard to argue with the ranking.

Here's my candidate for an underrated president: Zachary Taylor. He should get the love that's coming Grant's way. Grant's stock has gone up because, despite his corruption and incompetence, he (kind of) stood up for civil rights during Reconstruction. But Taylor was unexpectedly tough on the southern slaveocrats while he was president, when the top issue was whether slavery would get extended to the territories that Polk had conquered in the Mexican War (in which Taylor had been a general).

Posted by Doug | April 29, 2008 12:59 PM

Carter was pretty bad. So was Grant. Would love to hear a case why either should be higher.

Polk should be top 5 (any list should have Washington first and Lincoln second, then it gets blurry). Reagan and Truman are both overrated. Monroe is pretty overrated. Nixon's tough to place for obvious reasons, but is probably underrated.

Posted by right | April 29, 2008 1:01 PM

Polk = Manifest Destiny. Kind of a Big Deal in shaping what America has become.

And by the rank of Bush on that list, I think its probably a good idea to use a different, more reliable source.

Posted by arshi | April 29, 2008 1:06 PM

4 most over-rated things: James Joyce's novels, Elvis Presley's music, Ronald Reagan, and Scotch.

4 most under-rated things: Rudyard Kipling, grilled cheese, Fats Waller, and electric fans

Most contradictory presidents: Jefferson and LBJ

Most pernicious presidents: Bush II, Reagan, McKinley, and Buchanan

Oddest presidents: Carter, Carter, Carter, and Carter

Most perceptive books about a president: Crackers by Roy Blount Jr, Lincoln by Herndon

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 29, 2008 1:11 PM

Polk. #9 is fair if you like imperialism.

Or the West Coast.

Posted by right | April 29, 2008 1:11 PM

Overrated: Wilson (evil, disastrous, inept, overrated because a wartime president)

Johnson (only rated 37th, but still overrated-- bad as Nixon and the terrible troika of Pierce, Filmore, and Buchanan were, Johnson was effectively a traitor; and Johnson was clearly worse than Harding)

Madison-- a great man, a wonderful thinker, a terrible president who couldn't win a war he got us into on home turf against a Britain that was simultaneously fighting all of Napoleon's armies.

TR-- overrated because he talked really loudly and enjoyed success at beating brown people with large sticks.

Posted by Jacob T. Levy | April 29, 2008 1:12 PM

I think that WSJ poll has Buchanan overrated at 40. Putting him ahead of Garfield and Harrison is a disservice to them. Had Buchanan emulated Harrison and died about a month after his inaugural, he would have improved his performance considerably.

Both of the Adams were much better men than presidents. The elder in particular was a very bad president.

Jackson wasn't all bad. Aside from the nebulous democratizing, there was the successful fight against nullification. You have to weigh it against the trail of tears though.

I'd have to say poppy Bush was underrated. Just think of what a mess a twit like his son would have made of the collapse of the Soviet Union. I also think Carter is over-maligned. He had the most difficult circumstances since Roosevelt, and wasn't quite up to the challenge.

Posted by Njorl | April 29, 2008 1:13 PM

"Washington. Not my #1, though he looks better as I get older. Unanimously elected generalissimo, anyone?"

It's the peaceful handover of power and retirement that makes Washington so great.

Posted by Petey | April 29, 2008 1:15 PM

Four things that are rated exactly where they should be: Red wine. Contact lenses. Raymond Chandler. New socks.

Posted by James Gary | April 29, 2008 1:17 PM

It's the peaceful handover of power and retirement that makes Washington so great.

Indeed. And the respect for the young institutions of the government.

Posted by right | April 29, 2008 1:18 PM

Chester A. Arthur is vastly underrated.

Posted by Petey | April 29, 2008 1:24 PM

Either Matt updated his post or some of you need to work on reading comprehension since he starts his Overrated list with Kennedy.

Posted by Eric k | April 29, 2008 1:25 PM

Chester Arthur. He cleaned up the government, fought for Chinese immigration, and didn't do anything especially wicked. He's ranked 26th, but he might belong in the top 5.

Posted by beamish | April 29, 2008 1:25 PM

Washington's peaceful handover of power is overplayed. The legend grew up that he was offered a kingship and turned it down, but I don't know how many historians take seriously the possibility of Washington not turning over power.

What I find impressive about Washington is the maturity of his thought and his respect for the Constitutional system in general--it comes through in his writings. His farewell address, his letter to the synagogue in Newport--you read these things and you think this guy was a giant compared to the schmos we've got today.

Nonetheless, Lincoln and FDR both faced worse challenges and achieved more, so I rate them both higher.

Posted by Doug | April 29, 2008 1:28 PM

Wilson is generally overrated by foreigners who study modern US history, because those courses tend to begin in 1917 with the decision to enter the Great War, concentrate on the Paris treaties and League of Nations, and miss out the domestic stuff.

Some commenters appear to be uncertain of the metric here: 'overrated' and 'underrated' are more like vectors than scalars -- or at very least, count as a 'fair value' marker -- because they're relative to contemporary assessments. That's to say, having GWB at #19 just means that, even at markdown rates, he's overvalued.

(The biggest Bush cultists of the past eight years -- people like the Powertools or Hugh Hewitt -- will spend the rest of their lives denying their teen-esque crushes on the man.)

If anything, though, the combination of high expectations and an election process that favours mediocrities is almost always going to deliver presidents that disappoint.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 29, 2008 1:32 PM

Monroe is pretty overrated.

Wait, what?

Monroe got Florida for free! And the Monroe Doctrine was pretty good for the US (and the entire hemisphere). Sure, there was that pesky Missouri Compromise, but I'm not sure what else could have been done about Missouri. They don't call it the Era of Good Feelings for nothing.

Posted by Al | April 29, 2008 1:38 PM

Eisenhower is a bit of an ambivalent figure -- a brilliant man who was responsible for shaping much of the later Cold War, but who can be rightly criticized for his (and the Dulles brothers) reliance on covert actions that, in the long run, turned out pretty badly. His greatest foreign policy failure, Egypt, gave the Soviets twenty years in the Middle East, though after Sadat Moscow was left with only Syria and the fratricidal South Yemen as regional allies.

Johnson, I think, is strong on domestic issues but terrible internationally, and not just because of Vietnam. In particular, his decision to prime the Middle Eastern arms pump helped create the conditions that led to the 1967 war (though it was, of course, the Soviet decision to practice brinksmanship between Syria and Egypt that finally pushed the local powers into conflict), and he did a very good job of ignoring the warning signals the intelligence community was sending up.

I'd buy the idea that Nixon was underrated if Kissinger hadn't been his Svengali, and HAK is, if anything, equal parts brilliance and utter unscrupulousness, as the Kurds will attest to.

Carter: Screwed up the Iran situation so badly that it's hard to see him as a positive. Authorized the first covert operations in Afghanistan, as an attempt to foment a "crescent of crisis" against the Soviet Union. Pretty good strategic thinking on the part of Zbig, but ....

Reagan, overall, is currently being overrated due to his association with the end of the Cold War. He managed (or, rather failed to manage) an incredibly divided White House that was rife with backstabbing, sniping, power plays and uncontrolled covert operations that often worked at cross-purposes. On the other hand, he does deserve credit for a lot of the post-"Able Archer 83" diplomatic work to reduce US-Soviet tensions. Reagan was obviously haunted by a fear of armageddon, as his off-the-cuff remarks often revealed, and his diplomatic work was not only effective at reducing the risk of general war, but did lead to the final collapse of the Soviet system.

George H.W. Bush's own legacy is probably going to be in doubt for years to come, since a lot of it hangs on what he was involved in during the Reagan administration. Nonetheless, the Gulf War coalition was a triumph that never was matched by follow-through.

Clinton: Overrated, particularly in the field of foreign policy, where his envoys' disorganization and competing agendas managed to slow if not wreck much of the IL-Pal negotiations. The 2000 Camp David summit was a disaster, convened to protect his legacy and succeeding only in convincing the Israeli military that the Palestinians weren't serious about negotiation. His high-level focus on terrorism is a point in his favor, but since Cabinet-level focus was never translated into functional groups lower down, it didn't leave anything behind for the Bush administration.

George W. Bush: At zero, he'd still be overrated.

Posted by twb | April 29, 2008 1:45 PM

The biggest Bush cultists of the past eight years -- people like the Powertools or Hugh Hewitt -- will spend the rest of their lives denying their teen-esque crushes on the man.

I can't wait til the election in Nov. or the inauguration in Jan., when those goons write their glowing restrospectives on the Bush presidency and how we'll all see him vindicated.

Posted by mark f | April 29, 2008 1:58 PM

I'm quite pleased to be grouped with the other things you dislike. If I'm as good as lobster, champagne, anal sex and picnics, well then, I'm a happy Petey.

You'll always be grouped with anal sex here, Petey. Your comments always seem out of place and full of crap. Just like anal.

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 29, 2008 2:07 PM

Note that using the 2005 WSJ survey as the baseline buys into this rationale (quoting from Wikipedia):

Another presidential poll was conducted by The Wall Street Journal in 2005, with James Lindgren of Northwestern University Law School for the Federalist Society.[6] As in the 2000 survey, the editors sought to balance the opinions of liberals and conservatives, adjusting the results "to give Democratic- and Republican-leaning scholars equal weight." Franklin D. Roosevelt still ranked in the top-three, but editor James Taranto noted that Democratic-leaning scholars rated George W. Bush the sixth-worst president of all time, while Republican scholars rated him the sixth-best, giving him a split-decision rating of "average".

Now a comparable Journal survey today may come out with different results, but given that G.W.Bush is ranked 19th overall -- and 6th best among the Republican "scholars" -- tells us a lot about the mindset of the group. Perhaps a 50-50 split between liberals and conservatives may seem fair, but it may not be scholarly, all things considered.

Posted by Randy Gold | April 29, 2008 2:07 PM

Washington's peaceful handover of power is overplayed. The legend grew up that he was offered a kingship and turned it down, but I don't know how many historians take seriously the possibility of Washington not turning over power.

Basically every other presidential system in world history has had a problem with peaceful handover of executive authority, particularly early in the lifetime of the system. There are a number of reasons the US did not succumb to that early on, but none more important than the character of President Washington.

Monroe got Florida for free! And the Monroe Doctrine was pretty good for the US (and the entire hemisphere). Sure, there was that pesky Missouri Compromise, but I'm not sure what else could have been done about Missouri. They don't call it the Era of Good Feelings for nothing.

I don't think he was a bad President. He just didn't do all that much to justify his rank on the list (16th). He was hardly responsible for the Era of Good Feelings, he was just the beneficiary of it. Just branding the "doctrine" with his name has been enough to overrate him, even though he didn't do anything of particular import in Latin America during his term.

Posted by right | April 29, 2008 2:07 PM

Note that using the 2005 WSJ survey as the baseline buys into this rationale (quoting from Wikipedia):

Another presidential poll was conducted by The Wall Street Journal in 2005, with James Lindgren of Northwestern University Law School for the Federalist Society.[6] As in the 2000 survey, the editors sought to balance the opinions of liberals and conservatives, adjusting the results "to give Democratic- and Republican-leaning scholars equal weight." Franklin D. Roosevelt still ranked in the top-three, but editor James Taranto noted that Democratic-leaning scholars rated George W. Bush the sixth-worst president of all time, while Republican scholars rated him the sixth-best, giving him a split-decision rating of "average".

Now a comparable Journal survey today may come out with different results, but given that G.W.Bush is ranked 19th overall -- and 6th best among the Republican "scholars" -- tells us a lot about the mindset of the group. Perhaps a 50-50 split between liberals and conservatives may seem fair, but it may not be scholarly, all things considered.

Posted by Randy Gold | April 29, 2008 2:11 PM

James Gary:

Is this some kind of actual reference to Christopher Hitchens, or are you just stealing his material

I am truly sorry. How can I make make amends? Really, what I can do to make up for my horrible transgression? What will satisfy you, personally?

Posted by Peter K. | April 29, 2008 2:15 PM

Carter's underrated in foreign policy. Most successful Middle East peacemaker among Presidents, the Panama Canal treaty, and by eventually settling the hostage crisis without war set up a possible rapprochment between the US and the Islamic Republic which subsequent presidents completely blew.

Posted by William Burns | April 29, 2008 2:18 PM

Keep in mind that Bush at 19 happened in 2005. It's still a bit high even for that point, but at that time, he could have gone either way. In fact, I remember saying at that time that when he left office, he would be remembered as either one of the best or one of the worst presidents of all time, that there would be no middle ground. Turns out, I was correct.

Posted by Eric B | April 29, 2008 2:19 PM

Carter's underrated in foreign policy. Most successful Middle East peacemaker among Presidents, the Panama Canal treaty, and by eventually settling the hostage crisis without war set up a possible rapprochment between the US and the Islamic Republic which subsequent presidents completely blew.

Posted by William Burns | April 29, 2008 2:21 PM

I want to second what Randy Gold says--you only get Reagan placing as highly as he did using the Wall Street Journal/Federalist Society's affirmative action for conservatives. That survey doesn't tell you anything except that right-wingers like right-wingers.

Posted by Jim Naureckas | April 29, 2008 2:21 PM

"Washington's peaceful handover of power is overplayed. The legend grew up that he was offered a kingship and turned it down, but I don't know how many historians take seriously the possibility of Washington not turning over power."

"Basically every other presidential system in world history has had a problem with peaceful handover of executive authority, particularly early in the lifetime of the system. There are a number of reasons the US did not succumb to that early on, but none more important than the character of President Washington."

I suppose this will be my last comment on this, since it's a digression from the main topic of discussion.

Because the U.S. revolutionaries were not seeking to impose a new social system on their country--and while they instituted a republic, in political terms they really were seeking, to a great extent, to make permanent the political forms that had already developed in the British mainland colonies--there was never a real groundswell for dictatorship among the revolutionary leaders (e.g., the Founding Fathers). So Washington's renunciation of kingship is basically a non-issue.

If you're interested in locating the important moment in the institutionalization of "democracy" (such as it was) in the early years of the republic, you should consider that traditionally the election of 1800 was called "the revolution of 1800." That's because that was when the initial ruling party, the Federalists, peacefully turned over power to their rivals, the Republicans (i.e. the Jeffersonians). When Washington left office, he left the presidency in the hands of his party's chosen successor, John Adams. The credit Washington gets for turning over power might properly go to John Adams, since he accepted his "defeat" at the polls even though he probably got the most votes of those who actually voted. As Garry Wills pointed out a few years back, Jefferson won in 1800 only because the 3/5 clause of the Constitution gave slave states extra electoral college votes--the whites there voted on behalf of their slaves, for Jefferson! What a shonda.

Posted by Doug | April 29, 2008 2:45 PM

In terms of Monroe, credit for the annexation of Florida and the Monroe Doctrine really ought to go to his Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams. Monroe's term was largely ineffectual.

I'm going to step up again with a qualified defense of Wilson. The racism was bad. The civil liberties stuff was bad. Appointing James Clark McReynolds to the Supreme Court was awful. His arrogance meant that the US didn't join the League of Nations. There's no denying any of that. At the same time, his first term saw the passage of a great deal of important legislation - one of the most productive periods in history for progressive legislation (Federal Reserve, Clayton Antitrust, Underwood Tariff, among others). His foreign policy, I think, was about as good as could be managed. He tried to stay neutral for as long as he could, until the Germans basically made it impossible. His policy in Latin America was questionable, but no worse than that of his immediate predecessors or successors (at least he didn't sponsor a coup to assassinate the Democratic leader of Mexico and replace him with a worthless general, unlike Taft). The 14 Points were an important contribution to the idea of a non-punitive peace, even if they didn't work out exactly, and the actual terms of the Treaty of Versailles was about as good an effort as could be arrived at in the circumstances. The League of Nations was a good idea. Wilson was a mixed bag, but certainly nowhere near all bad, and the positive rankings of him aren't simply because he's a wartime president.

I'd also suggest that the idea that Wilson and Kennedy are "overrated" is so widespread that they hardly qualify as overrated anymore.

I agree that Chester Arthur is probably underrated.

I'll also say that Millard Fillmore doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan. His strong enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act was certainly deeply unpleasant, and not something we should admire, but Fillmore was obviously a lot more even handed in his approach to sectional issues than southern apologists like Pierce and Buchanan (especially Buchanan). He believed that the Compromise of 1850 had to be strictly enforced as a permanent settlement of sectional differences. His successors believed that it needed to be modified to give even more advantages to the south, to the point that, by the 1860 election campaign, Buchanan was working hand in hand with secessionists to split the Democratic Party. Fillmore's policy was obviously based on some moral premises that are completely unacceptable, but he was nowhere near as bad as his Democratic successors. I'd also say that John Tyler, who was disowned by his own party, and ran the country through a southern, ultra-states rights, annexationist clique, was clearly worse than Fillmore

Also, how was Andrew Johnson a traitor? He was a racist, certainly, but a staunch unionist during the civil war. His policy was unjust, and opposed by congress, but I don't see how his policies constitute treason.

Pretty clearly from the list, Warren G. Harding is the most underrated president. Sure, he was a deeply unremarkable man, and there was corruption in his administration. But worse than Franklin Pierce and Andrew Johnson? Nothing horrible happened to the country during his presidency. There were no moral outrages. He wasn't even an isolationist in the way he is typically depicted as being - the US was very involved in Europe throughout his presidency. He just had some corrupt friends. He was better on race than Wilson, and really did bring the "return to normalcy" that he promised.

Also overrated in that ranking: Grover Cleveland. Why on earth should Grover Cleveland be ranked 18 slots higher than his opponent, Benjamin Harrison? Both were unremarkable, personally honest, late 19th century presidents who neither accomplished much nor fucked up too much. Why the disparity?

Posted by John | April 29, 2008 2:54 PM

Four most overrated things in life: lobster, champagne, anal sex and picnics.

One can see why an ass like you might think anal sex was overrated . . .

Posted by rea | April 29, 2008 3:12 PM

Crap, I hate to agree with Petey, but Chester Arthur is by far the most underrated at 26. I agree with Beamish that he might make my top 5. Also, Woodrow Wilson is clearly the most absurdly overrated at 11. He should be in the bottom 5, and no higher.

Posted by Hunter H. | April 29, 2008 3:21 PM

The WSJ poll has GWB above his father (19 vrs 21) which is ridiculous.

Posted by James B. Shearer | April 29, 2008 3:22 PM

One can see why an ass like you might think anal sex was overrated . .

Touche! Actually I was joking. Just trying to give people a laugh on a Tuesday.

"Silent" Cal Coolidge should be in the top ten overrated.

Posted by Peter K. | April 29, 2008 3:23 PM

By the way, this is such a stupid activity. What does this even mean? And why are presidents the only people ever rated this way?

Posted by John | April 29, 2008 3:26 PM

Anyone who thinks LBJ is underrated hasn't read The Best and Brightest. Whatever he did domestically is more than counterbalanced by how badly he fucked up on Vietnam. The one redeeming thing for him is civil rights.

Posted by Gus | April 29, 2008 3:44 PM

Amateur historian here. Off the top of my head - looking at the latest poll - I'd say James Madison is undervalued, though I may be taking into account his Continental Congress and other pre-presidential work. I'd also rate Lyndon Johnson as higher as well. I'd try to balance his great domestic work with his SE Asia work.

Even in 2005 I'm shocked at how high The Moron is rated.

Posted by phoebes | April 29, 2008 4:36 PM

Grant? Ulysses S Grant? Surely you're joking.

Grant may have been the best American general ever, but was certainly one of the worst presidents. Check "Teapot Dome", or just factor in the "Dances with Wolves" picture of his administration's policies in action. Or maybe "Little Big Man".

Only two or three presidents were worse.

Posted by Robert Powell | April 29, 2008 4:59 PM

Mr. Powell - you might want to look up "Teapot Dome" yourself.

Grant has come in for reappraisal recently because of a more general reassessment of Reconstruction.

Posted by John | April 29, 2008 5:16 PM

I don't think you can saddle President Grant with Teapot Dome, since he'd been dead more than thirty years when it happened.

Said Mark Twain: "I am but one in 55,000,000; still, in the opinion of this one-fifty-five millionth of the country's population, it would be hard to better President Arthur's administration. But don't decide till you hear from the rest." I tend to agree. Plus ... the muttonchops!

How over/underrate is anal sex with James Buchanan?

Posted by Lord Growing | April 29, 2008 5:18 PM

Teapot Dome was Harding, not Grant.

Posted by mad6798j | April 29, 2008 5:24 PM

I would say that Woodrow Wilson is highly overrated. He was a virulent racist who allowed what amounted to a pogrom against DC's African American community to continue unabated in the wake of the First World War, and he rolled back most of TR's efforts to desegregate the civil service. He was also a war monger, drawing the U.S. into an unecessary conflict by supporting the British and the French through arms shipments, and then acting aghast when the Germans defended themselves by attacking those arms shipments. Ultimately, he declaring war on a country he had been trying to defeat for over 2 years.
The First World War, and especially its aftermath, was one of the great tragedies in all of history. Wilson, the self-righteous prick that he was, thought that he could save the world through his brilliant ideas. He was a fool, and his inability to stand up to the recklessly reactionary French and British helped precipitate the greatest disaster in human history, the Second World War. Wilson is by no means to blame for all of the suffering that occured as a result these two world altering conflicts, but he deserves credit for nothing. His accomplishments are largely theoretical, i.e. what a good idea it would be to have an international body of nations that could settle disputes before they turn violent. None of his ideas was ever put into practice however, and his inaction, and ineffectiveness at crucial moments beg the question what if? History's greats master their moments. Wilson's moments mastered him.

Posted by Thomas | April 29, 2008 5:24 PM

Re: Monroe got Florida for free!

Monroe was lucky. The Spanish controlled nothing more than St Augustine and its townlands. Gen Andrew Jackson had already grabbed the panhandle during the War of 1812; the rest of Florida was inhabited by a few escaped slaves and Indians (even the Seminoles hadn't really arrived yet) and no one else. Spain was also losing its American empire to revolts so it made sense to cut its losses and sell off a piece it never really did care much for, except as a naval base to protect the old treasure shipping lanes, which were now useless.

Re: a brilliant man who was responsible for shaping much of the later Cold War, but who can be rightly criticized for his (and the Dulles brothers) reliance on covert actions that, in the long run, turned out pretty badly.

While a lot of it turned out pretty badly, I think that covert action is still preferrable to outright war. Far, far fewer people die in the case of covert ops.

Re: George H.W. Bush's own legacy is probably going to be in doubt for years to come, since a lot of it hangs on what he was involved in during the Reagan administration. Nonetheless, the Gulf War coalition was a triumph that never was matched by follow-through.

Bush (41) also managed the end game of the Cold War very sanely and sensibly. The fall of empires is a profoundly dangerous time in the world. Accused of timidity by the Neocons, he was absolutely right to defer to the Soviet Union in its death throes, refusing to push American aims or do anything at all to hasten the end.

Re: Basically every other presidential system in world history has had a problem with peaceful handover of executive authority, particularly early in the lifetime of the system.

Even when leaders do cede power personally they usually try to leave some sort of irrestible partisan apparatus behind to insure thingd go the way they want after they're gone. Mexico's PRI is an obvious example. Vladimir Putin is also weaving those webs. And look at what the Ayatollah Khomeini (who of course never ceded power except to the grave) left behind.

Posted by JonF | April 29, 2008 7:53 PM

I'm a historian and I've actually received invitations to participate in several of these polls. The one time I tried, I found it virtually impossible to offer meaningful ratings. How do you compare 18th-century presidents with their 20th-century counterparts? Their powers were different, the US government was different, the issues were different, etc. And can we judge the morality of their actions by our standards? For example, how do we deal with James K. Polk's territorial acquisitions? Some historians give him "high marks" for seizing half of Mexico, but I'm not sure I can do that. An earlier post raised the issue of Monroe's acquisition of Forida, and similar caveats apply. What about all of the presidents before Lincoln, who did nothing about slavery? Can I give them "high marks," and in the process overlook what we'd now consider to be this nation's most heinous human rights violation? None of the polls I've seen offer guidelines on these questions, which means each historian applies a different standard. In the end, I threw mine in the garbage.

Posted by sean | April 29, 2008 9:01 PM

In all this talk about various Presidents being treasonous, John Tyler, in his post-Presidency, was actually elected to the Confederate House of Representatives, though he died before taking office. I think any discussion of treasonous Presidents would have to start with Tyler and continue with Pierce.

Posted by Adam Villani | April 29, 2008 9:06 PM

I recently had this conversation:

"I think George Bush is the most overrated president."

"But... everyone hates him."

"I know."

Posted by MNPundit | April 30, 2008 3:53 AM