"Rating the Presidents: Washington to Clinton" by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., in Political Science Quarterly (Summer 1997), 475 Riverside Dr., Ste. 1274, New York, N.Y. 10115–1274; "The Ultimate Approval Rating" by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., in The New York Times Magazine (Dec. 15, 1996), 229 W. 43rd St., New York, N.Y. 10036; "‘ There You Go Again’" by Alvin S. Felzenberg, in Policy Review (Mar.–Apr. 1997), The Heritage Foundation, 214 Massachusetts Ave. N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002.
Ever since historian Arthur M. Schlesinger asked 55 of his colleagues in 1948 to rate the American presidents, scholars and others have continued to play the game. Schlesinger’s son, historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., did so last year for the New York Times Magazine. Through the decades, he notes, the polls show a remarkable scholarly consensus.
"There have been nine Greats and Near Greats in nearly all the scholarly reckonings," he writes. "Lincoln, Washington, and F.D. Roosevelt are always at the top, followed always, though in varying order, by Jefferson, Jackson, Polk, Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson, and Truman. Occasionally John Adams, Cleveland, and Eisenhower join the top nine. The Failures have always been Grant and Harding, with Buchanan, Pierce, Fillmore, Taylor, and Coolidge always near the bottom."
"The most striking change," Schlesinger says, "has been the steady rise of Eisenhower." In a 1962 poll conducted by Schlesinger père, Ike finished in 22nd place, near the bottom of the Average presidents; in the 1996 survey by Schlesinger fils, he ascended to 10th, just outside the Near Great ring. (Ten of the 32 jurors thought he belonged among the Near Great; one placed him among the Great.)
"Several factors account for Eisenhower’s ascent," Schlesinger says. "The opening of his papers showed that the mask of genial affability Ike wore in the White House concealed an astute, crafty, confident, and purposeful leader.... Moreover, the FDR model and the yardsticks in earlier polls contained a bias in favor of an activist presidency. After Vietnam and Watergate showed that presidential activism could go too far, Eisenhower appeared in a better light. . . . The more his successors got into trouble, the better Eisenhower looked. Presidents sometimes do more for the reputations of their predecessors than they do for their own."
"The most astonishing part of Schlesinger’s poll," asserts political scientist Felzenberg, who has taught at Princeton University and elsewhere, "was the low assessment" given to Ronald Reagan, who placed 25th ("Average"), just below George Bush and ahead of Chester Arthur. Reagan, Schlesinger writes, "has seven Near Great votes, including some from liberal scholars impressed by his success in restoring the prestige of the presidency, in negotiating the last phases of the cold war, and in imposing his priorities on the country." But Reagan also received nine Below Averages and four Failures from others on the Schlesinger panel.
Ten graders of a more conservative bent queried by Policy Review not surprisingly give Reagan much higher marks. "When passions cool after a generation or so," predicts Alonzo L. Hamby, who teaches history at Ohio University, "Ronald Reagan will be widely accepted by historians as a near-great chief executive."