Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Ranking the Presidents, Part Three

Continuing from yesterday, we find that the Times have put John F. Kennedy at number 11. I'm sorry, but this is simply a sentimental ranking. Kennedy did not do all that much, had at least one major fiasco at the Bay of Pigs, and had a low approval rating (44%) on the morning of his assassination. Let's face it, too: we would have never gotten to the Moon except that the project was made into something of a dedication to JFK's memory. I'm really not all that down on him, mind you, I simply believe that his being killed in office lionized him. It has skewered history's perspective.

Lyndon Johnson pulls in at twelfth. This also, I believe, has more to do with Kennedy's afterglow than what an objective analysis of LBJ's Presidency would allow. Sure, he made great strides in civil rights, but he also expanded the federal government with his Great Society politics. It ushered in the age of entitlement, whereby people began expecting that the government would help them rather than they learning to help themselves. Yes, I know that I may be accused of merely viewing these and many other issues of many other Presidents in a biased conservative light. But isn't it required of an honest appraisal of history that we judge the events on their merit? Simply being innovative isn't enough: we must consider whether the things these men did or tried to do were truly what was best for the United States in the long run. Innovation ultimately is like change: not good in itself but merely the doing of things differently today than yesterday. We must ask about the nature and morality of the innovation. Besides, you don't think that the judgment that the Great Society was good for the country isn't at the heart of it a result of a liberal bias, do you? Johnson ranks higher than he should.

Not so with lucky number 13. He is another who should definitely rank higher, and I imagine he will creep up the list into greatness eventually. John Adams deserves better than history has given him, and he has in the last 30 or so years began getting it. Sure, the Alien and Sedition Acts were bad law, but he kept us out of war with France and England at a time when war would have been disastrous for the young republic. This was especially tough considering the XYZ Affair for awhile made Americans particularly contemptuous of the French. He would have won another term if not for the behind the scenes plotting of Alexander Hamilton against him. Midnight judges? Bah. He gave us John Marshall as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, arguably the greatest Justice ever. Outside of Washington, John Adams was the greatest of the founders, and a worthy successor to the First President.

Andrew Jackson comes next. He 'invented populism' as the Times said, and as such has a lot to answer for. A war hero, a frontiersman, and a strong chief executive, to be sure. He hated the Bank of the United States and the monied interests, which gave him a great public boost. But did it also introduce jealousy into the political process, thereby encouraging class enmity?

He had the rare guts to stand up to the Supreme Court. When the aforementioned Chief Justice Marshall ruled in favor of the Cherokee nation in the Indian Removal cases, Jackson famously replied, "Mr. Marshall has made his ruling. Let Mr. Marshall enforce it." Jackson showed us that the greatest check on the power of the Court was in a president simply ignoring it. Sadly, he was in the moral wrong when he did it. He should rank lower.

Rounding out the top fifteen we have James Madison. Here we also have another leader given a certain priority not because of his actions as President but his for reputation outside of the office. He led us into the War of 1812, or the Second American Revolution as many refer to it. It was, I believe, a just war, though tragic circumstances lend it a poignancy war rarely attains: the whole reason for the War was ended by the British the day before war was declared, but slow news meant a delay which would not stop the conflict. He supposedly even took direct command of troops at Bladensburg, Maryland, the only Commander in Chief to actually command an Army in the field. It makes for an interesting historical sidebar, and seeing as the War likely brought America closer together as a nation, I suppose I can accept this middle high ranking he's been given.

This is fun, eh? Five more tomorrow...

No comments: