Ranking of U.S. Presidents by historians

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Originally Posted by tater

It was certainly bound to do so. As I said way up there, any "ranking" is absurd. It's no different than the idiotic shows on the History ( Military?) Channel that rank the "Ten best Submarines." It's not like they pick some simple, objective standard like, "total tonnage sunk by the class," or better, the tonnage sunk per submarine in class lost. No, they add stuff like "fear factor" (whatever the hell that is), then rank submarines that are without question deadly, but have NEVER proven themselves in combat.

Meaningless.

As is any ranking of Presidents, it is in fact a popularity contest that measures not the Presidents, but the historians. The relative rankings show the overall bias of the academic historians polled, and tell us virtually nothing about the Presidents in question.

Could it be Presidents you philosophically agree with are ranked lower than you'd want?

I thought these kinds of surveys polled historians from all kinds of philosophical backgrounds.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Torvald Von Mansee

Could it be Presidents you philosophically agree with are ranked lower than you'd want?

No, it's that ranking people 1 to whatever is absurd, and subjective—which is what I said.

Again, exactly how much better is President #1 from President #2? 1.378658765% better? What does that mean, did he tie his shoes 1.378658765% faster?

The analogy to those shows on the history channel is spot-on.

So while I think you could possibly put Presidents into some zoological piles like "effective," "ineffective," etc, saying that one is better than another based on having one more vote by some historian is absurd.

I would say such a ranking was absurd regardless of who was on top, or what the % of philosophical backgrounds is. It's SILLY.

I thought these kinds of surveys polled historians from all kinds of philosophical backgrounds.

Really? Where is the methodology section of the poll? I checked out the Sienna Poll, and in none of their materials does it list each historian polled, along with his party affiliation. That's what it would take for you to demonstrate that the poll had no political bias, you'd need equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats polled. Since ~80% of university profs are registered Democrats (have seen numbers in that area in a few different polls before)—and the remaining 20% is not Republicans, it's split along with parties LEFT of the democrats—it would be hard to get a 50/50 split without some proof of party affiliation.

So what we have is a silly idea—ranking Presidents—executed in an almost certainly biased way.

[Sailor Steve]

Well said, tater.

Originally Posted by tater

So while I think you could possibly put Presidents into some zoological piles like "effective," "ineffective," etc...

Even then effectiveness is affected by congressional agreement and opposition. One president may accomplish all his goals because congress is on his side, while another may be blocked at every turn. One may also be a strong leader and get a lot of wrong things done, and another may try to do the right things but not be very good at them.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Well said, tater.


Even then effectiveness is affected by congressional agreement and opposition. One president may accomplish all his goals because congress is on his side, while another may be blocked at every turn. One may also be a strong leader and get a lot of wrong things done, and another may try to do the right things but not be very good at them.

True enough, I was at first thinking that was objective—policy goals stated vs achieved, but I suppose that it could also be weighted based on the relatie weight of that president's party in Congress. You'd be more effective if you got your bill through a more hostile congress than a rubber stamp.

Dunno. Even that falls into subjectivity.

It's like ranking restaurants. My fave might be a thai place, and you might love food, but hate thai food (you could be one of those folks who taste cilantro as soapy, in which case it's hard-wired for you to dislike it).

[Wolfehunter]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/1...ma_billboard_4

Some people really don't like there current president? May I ask why they voted for him then?

That billboard is hardcore...

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Wolfehunter

That billboard is hardcore...

Anyone see Rich Sanchez (of CNN) label the people on the billboard "Hitler, Obama, and Stalin". He corrected himself about a half hour later but it was an fantastic "History Fail".

I just wish I had a picture of it.

[Platapus]

I got a kick out of the tag line: Radical leaders prey on the fearful and the naive.

There are pots and kettles.....

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by Wolfehunter

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/1...ma_billboard_4

Some people really don't like there current president? May I ask why they voted for him then?

That billboard is hardcore...

Heh. I'm learning not to be too surprised by anything these days. That billboard was taken down and has been replaced with a PSA.