Ranking the Presidents, Part Two

As we continue looking over a recent assessment of our chief executives, the list which I'm using as a basis (it turns out that it's courtesy of the New York Times, which may explain the issues I have with it) placed Dwight Eisenhower sixth.

I have never given Eisenhower much thought. I have nothing against him, and I originally thought that this placement was, sort of like Jefferson's, more a reflection of his war hero status than for his job as president. Yet he was responsible for at least the beginning of the end of segregation in the South, and his administration saw the Civil Rights Act of 1957 as well. He saw to the development of the Interstate Highway System which bears his name, and I dare say that it is one of the handful of big government undertakings both constitutional and worth the effort. I'm sure that it's enough to merit a ranking this high, but it does remind me that perhaps I should give Ike more consideration as a president.

Harry Truman is granted seventh place, and I have to say I think he deserves it. Unpopular at the time he left office, his prestige has grown as the years have passed. This is not unusual, and I will remark on it later with other former leaders. Suffice it to say that as a man becomes more a part of history it is easier to judge him more objectively: the embers of dislike and/or partisanship cool and rationality take over. He ordered the use of atomic weapons, and I for one applaud that difficult decision. It saved more lives and hardship that it cost. But I think what I admire the most about him was firing MacArthur during the Korean War. He knew it would cost him his job yet he did it anyway, simply because it was the right thing to do. We rarely see that kind of guts in Washington, and it should not go unrewarded when it happens. The man, aptly enough from Independence, merits a spot in the top ten.

As does number eight, Ronald Reagan. We may be still too close to his administration to consider it in full objectivity, and I will allow that my personal bias in his favor may cloud my viewpoint, but I expect that he'll rise farther up over time. Indeed I rather believe he could well merit being thought of as high as third. He lowered taxes, slowed the growth of government, forced a radically new arms control initiative on the Soviets while keeping our Star Wars technology moving forward, and was a major force in the fall of Russian communism. Notice, too, how he changed the political debate so much that Obama and the Democrats see the value of tax breaks themselves. I wish he would have done more about abortion, or played his hand better and gotten Robert Bork on the Supreme Court, but, then, nobody's perfect. He accomplished much more than most pundits thought he could. Ronald Reagan is, at the least, the greatest President of the twentieth century.

Coming in ninth is James Knox Polk. This surprises me. Granted, he saw to the treaty which secured the Oregon Country for us. And yes, he put the finishing touches on what is now the continental United Sates. Yet he engaged Mexico in what has to be regarded as a war of conquest in order to do it. Consequently, I would have never imagined the Times' staff placing him in the top ten. I'm not sure I would have either, if I had put together the list myself. Top twenty, I think, or maybe even top fifteen, but a top ten finish strikes me as too far up the list.

Woodrow Wilson rounds out the top ten. Maybe he deserves it, but I am inclined to say no. His idea for the League of Nations inspires some; I am not in those ranks. His Fourteen Points are seen in some circles as great innovations in world politics, and they aren't all bad. He oversaw the creation of the Federal Reserve, which is at best a ho-hum proposition, and the direct election of Senators, an amendment to our Constitution which significantly cut the power of the States as States. World War I came along almost as an afterthought, and his trip to Versailles for the peace conference was almost pointless, though that wasn't really his fault. Many want him to be remembered as a visionary, and perhaps he should. But I can't help but think of him a boring bookworm. Sorry, Woody.