Post Presidency Statistics

A previous blog discussed the number of former presidents upon whom the current president could call.  With the passing of President Carter, the number of former presidents has gone down from 5 to 4.  Strangely, it will remain 4 after the inauguration as Donald Trump will leave the ex-presidents and Joe Biden will join them.  How long does a post-presidency generally last?  That depends on how you look at it.

The median post-presidency lasts for 8.26 years.  That is, there are as many presidents above that number as below.  22 Presidents had shorter post-presidencies and 22 had longer.

The average post-presidency is 11.32 years.  Having lived as a former president for nearly 44 years, Jimmy Carter pulled that average up.

The mode - which is the most frequent result - for a post-presidency is 0 years.  Yes, 8 presidents died in office and thus never became former presidents.

The post-presidency is getting longer.  Every former president since Nixon has live at least 15 years after leaving office.

President Carter

Only 2 months after his 100th birthday, President Carter has died.  Of all presidents, he had the longest post-presidency by far.  He was an ex-president for 43.9 years.  His nearest competitor, Herbert Hoover, lived to the age of 90, having been ex-president for 31.6 years.  His record cannot be beaten for at least another 20 years.  If Bill Clinton makes it to 98, he could outdo Carter.  George W Bush would have to make it to 106, which seems unlikely.  Next, Barack could surpass Carter in 36 years, at age 99.  Trump and Biden aren't in the running unless something really amazing happens in longevity research.

In many ways, Carter was an unusual president.  As mentioned in a recent blog, he never chose a justice for the Supreme Court.  His predecessors did not burden him with an ongoing military conflict, and he didn't start any during his term.  Yes, Iran and Afghanistan became major issues, but the US didn't go to war.  Carter tried to resolve foreign conflicts with peace talks and boycotts rather than tanks and soldiers.  Commendable, but of questionable effect.  He is one of four presidents to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

Jimmy Carter was the first president I recall.  When I was in the 4th grade, a TV was rolled into the classroom and we watched the inauguration.  One is not usually politically aware at that age, but it was from that point that I could always answer the question: Who is the president of the United States?

RIP

Nobel Peace Prize Presidents

The Nobel Peace Prize was first awarded in 1901.  It was to be given "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."  Since then, 4 American Presidents have won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Theodore Roosevelt (1906): The president who called for speaking softly and carrying a big stick held a peace conference to end the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905).  Despite his jingoist reputation - or more likely because of it, Roosevelt had no wars during his presidency and managed to quell one in which the US was not a participant.  He is the only Republican president to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

Woodrow Wilson (1919): The president who "kept us out of the war" until he was safely re-elected won the peace prize for his role in founding the League of Nations.  Though he had been its leading proponent, he was unable to convince the US Senate to ratify membership.  Thus, the US didn't join.  The US did join the League's successor, the United Nations.  Secretary of State Cordell Hull won the 1945 Peace Prize for that.

Jimmy Carter (2002): Though he won it long after his presidency ended, his peace prize recognized his years of work as a peacemaker.  Of particular note, the Camp David Accords, which led to a peace deal between Israel and Egypt, were hosted by President Carter during his presidency, very like the peace conference Roosevelt had hosted in 1905.  The 1978 Peace Prize was awarded to Menachem Begin of Israel and Anwar Sadat of Egypt.  The oversight of Carter's role was rectified in 2002.

Barack Obama (2009): President Obama was awarded the peace prize only 9 months into his administration "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."  Whereas the other three presidents had clear accomplishments in pursuit of peace, Obama had only aspirational speeches. At the time, this looked to be an award for things to come. Even Obama himself was astonished and suggested that it was not "a recognition of my own accomplishments but rather an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations."

In recent decades, the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded arbitrarily.  The parameters for the award are clear: 

to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.

This is an award for diplomats, disarmament proponents, and peaceniks.  Former VP Al Gore won in 2007 for his film about climate change.  The 2011 peace prize was awarded to those struggling for women's rights in Liberia and Yemen.  The 2014 peace prize recognized efforts to educate young people in India and Pakistan.  Yes, these are laudable goals, but do they best represent the stated intent of the award.  I don't think so.

Presidential Centenarian

Jimmy Carter, 39th President of the United States, achieved the age of 100 today.  When you consider that all his siblings and his father died of pancreatic cancer, this is nothing short of a miracle.  His father died at 58, his sisters at 63 and 54, and his brother at 51.  Did the deadly gene that cursed his father and siblings miss him or has he lived his life in such a way to dodge pancreatic cancer?  I wonder if any medical researchers have thought to look into this?  Maybe Carter stumbled on a cure or preventative measure.

Happy Birthday, Mr. President!

Presidential Rankings - The Terrible Ones

These are the presidential disasters, highly-negative leaders who clearly damaged the well-being of the nation.

Franklin Pierce: An unknown politician unprepared for the presidency.  His last surviving child died shortly before Pierce assumed the presidency, sending him into alcohol and grief.  He pandered to slave owners and vilified abolitionists.  The Gadsden Purchase took place during his presidency.

James Buchanan: Most impressive resume prior to George H W Bush, but twiddled his thumbs as the country descended into Civil War.  Did nothing as the South seceded after the election but before Lincoln's inauguration.

Andrew Johnson: Lincoln's greatest mistake.  A pro-slavery demagogue who was entirely unsuited to the task of healing a nation in the aftermath of the Civil War.

Woodrow Wilson: Worst racist in presidential history.  Reversed racial progress rather than accept the status quo.  Set the stage for the rise of the Nazis and WWII.  Imprisoned political opponents, notably Eugene Debs.  Held constitutional limits in low regard, ignored civil liberties, refused to negotiate with Senate Republicans in foreign policy (which killed his League of Nations), and hid his debilitating stroke for more than a year at the end of his term.

Herbert Hoover: Tragic figure.  Brilliant, accomplished, and well-meaning.  However, he was a compulsive busybody whose efforts to fix the economy only worsened the Great Depression.  Began many of the New Deal policies that FDR adopted; they were all bad.

Jimmy Carter: Economic incompetence, foreign affairs disasters, angering allies and fawning over enemies.  Responsible for the rise of the Iranian mullahs.  Emboldened Islamic terrorists for decades thereafter by showing such astonishing weakness.  The malaise speech, the misery index, inability to get along with Congressional Democrats, let alone the Republicans.  Acted to undermine virtually every successor, regardless of party.

Yes, I can agree with this bunch.  Franklin Pierce wasn't even considered as the candidate until the 35th ballot.  The big guns - Lewis Cass, James Buchanan, Stephen Douglas, and William Marcy - could not assemble two-thirds of the delegates to capture the nomination.  Pierce was a dark horse who was enough of a blank slate that he won the nomination on the 49th ballot.  Is it any wonder he was not ready for the job.  The Democrats saw their error from 1852 and did not renominate Pierce in 1856, instead choosing Buchanan.  Despite a tremendous resume, he too failed miserably.  Like George H W Bush, Buchanan was groomed for a foreign policy presidency and was unsuited to domestic issues.  Andrew Johnson was a Tennessean who favored the Union.  Straddling both sides, one would think he would be ideal in the wake of the war.  Instead, he paved the way for Jim Crow rather than racial equality.  Wilson did not like the Constitution or the Republic it established.  He was indeed a horrible president.  Hoover had been part of the Harding Administration when Secretary of Treasury Andrew Mellon deftly turned Wilson's post-war depression into nearly a decade of prosperity.  Instead of trying to duplicate that, he tinkered and meddled, transforming a downturn into the Great Depression.  I would guess that Graboyes had first-hand experience with the Carter presidency based on the laundry list of failings.  I've always viewed Carter in much the way he paints Hoover: a well-meaning man who inadvertently did far more harm than good.

Responding to a comment regarding his rankings, Graboyes said that the six terribles led to hell: Pierce & Buchanan to the Civil War, Johnson to Jim Crow, Wilson to Nazism, Hoover to Depression, and Carter to Jihadism.  He also speculates that it might have been better to have 7 tiers rather than 5.