Presidential Rankings - The Great Ones

I have long disagreed with the regular presidential rankings that are published every few years.  Invariably, the most recent Republicans are at the very bottom and the most recent Democrats rank very highly.  No bias there.  A couple of weeks ago, I came across one by Robert Graboyes that did not follow the usual rankings.  The presidents are separated into quintiles: highly positive, somewhat positive, neutral, somewhat negative, and highly negative.  There is a 6th category for those who died so early in office that they don't merit ranking.  Let's start with the greats (i.e., highly positive):

Graboyes defines highly positive as leaving "at least one blockbuster accomplishment that swamps any negatives."

George Washington:  He was the first president and established what the office would be.  Everything he did became a precedent, including his resignation after 2 terms.  He defined the presidency.

Thomas Jefferson: The third president bought Louisianna from Napoleon, dramatically expanding the United States.  Where most nations were paying protection to the Tripolitan pirates, Jefferson sent the Marines.

James Monroe: Other than Washington, Monroe is the only president to run unopposed for re-election.  His time in office was known as the Era of Good Feelings.  He announced the Monroe Doctrine, which declared the Western Hemisphere as off-limits to European powers.

James Knox Polk: Nearly doubled the size of the United States and established treasury autonomy.  As a longtime Polk fan, it pleases me greatly that he was placed in the highly positive group.  This surely impacts my view of his overall picks.

Abraham Lincoln:  He saved the Union.  Enough said.

Theodore Roosevelt: He strengthened the presidency and established America as a superpower.  Indeed, he is the first US president to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt: He led the allies to victory.

Harry Truman: He began the containment of Communism.

Ronald Reagan: He turned the economy around from the Ford/Carter mess, starting a 25-year economic boom.  More importantly, his strategy ended the Soviets without a war.

Generally, this is a good list.  I will quibble about FDR, whose actions regarding the Great Depression and threats of packing the Supreme Court should cost him a great spot.  However, FDR has been listed as one of the three greats - with Washington and Lincoln - in almost every list.  If Mount Rushmore had been carved in the 50s or later rather than the 20s and 30s, FDR would be on it.

The Last Soviet

"Gentlemen, comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about Glasnost and Perestroika and democracy in the coming years. They are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal changes in the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep."

Mikhail Gorbachev

November 1987

Mikhail Gorbachev died today, and the Western media is celebrating him as the man who ended the Cold War.  What about Reagan?  No, he was the man who might have nuked the world and only Gorbachev saved us.  How is it that the leader of a totalitarian state has long been hailed as a peacemaker while his democratically elected opponents - Reagan & Thatcher - are painted as dangerous extremists?  The fact is that Gorbachev had the misfortune of coming to power during the final decline of the Soviet system.  He lost the Cold War, but the Democrat and Labour opponents of Reagan and Thatcher weren't about to give them credit.  No, the hagiographies were composed for the loser.  For years, Reagan's refrain was 'We win, you lose,' to the Soviets.  The US economy dwarfed the Soviet economy, and an arms race was like Usain Bolt racing a 10-year-old.  Efforts to keep pace could only result in bankruptcy for the USSR.  Then there was Chernobyl.  That disaster changed the dialogue.  Even Gorbachev decried the shoddy workmanship in the Soviet Union, admitting failings that prior leaders spent decades denying.  While the Soviet people view Gorbachev negatively, he has been quite popular in the West.  By presiding over the destruction of the nation he led, he received a Nobel Prize (1990).  The man who wanted to save Soviet communism, and failed, was lionized.  In retrospect, that was a fair trade.  Even Reagan would agree.

“There is no limit to the amount of good you can do if you don't care who gets the credit.”

Ronald Reagan

"The role of Ronald Reagan had been deliberately diminished; the role of the Europeans, who, with the exception of Helmet Kohl, were often keen to undermine America when it mattered, had been sanitized; and the role of Mr. Gorbachev, who had failed spectacularly in his declared objective of saving communism and the Soviet Union, had been absurdly misunderstood."

Margaret Thatcher

Death Valley Days: George Vest

It is 1869 and 12-year-old Andy Cody is running outside with his dog, Johnny.  Johnny races ahead and Andy hears two gunshots.  Catching up to Johnny, Andy sees the dog is dead and Carter Johnson standing nearby with a shotgun.  Andy is understandably upset, but Johnson declares that he repeatedly warned Andy to keep off his property.  Demanding justice for the unwarranted killing of his dog, Andy asks George Graham Vest (Ronald Reagan) to sue Johnson for damages.  Vest agrees.  Soon, Johnson is in court to defend himself from the $500 suit over a 10-year-old mutt not worth more than 50 cents.  The evidence clearly shows that the dog had little value and was indeed trespassing.  In his summation, Vest orated about friendship and the loyalty of a dog.  The jury found in favor of Andy.

Interestingly, this is a true story though many of the names have been changed.  Why?  Leonidas Hornsby, a sheep farmer, shot Old Drum after having announced his intention to kill any dog found on his property.  Charles Burden, Old Drum's owner, sought recompence.  As shown, Vest won the case more on account of his moving oratory than any evidence.  Rather than $500, Burden was awarded $50.

There are some noteworthy things that the episode glossed over.  Carter Johnson is supposedly a man with political influence and Vest plans to run for Senate.  That he pursues the suit anyway shows what an upstanding lawyer he is.  Hmm.  George Vest was for the Confederacy.  He argued to maintain slavery in Missouri and later became a Representative and Senator in the Confederate government.  In 1870, when the suit went to trial, Vest had no reason to fear the influence of a sheep farmer.  Furthermore, as a former Confederate office holder during Reconstruction (1865-1877), he was ineligible for election.  He was not elected to the US Senate until 1879, when Reconstruction had ended.  Senators were selected by the state assembly and didn't get popular votes as they do today.

Entertaining and an interesting bit of American history, but too many liberties were taken to view it as educational.

Death Valley Days: David Farragut

It is June of 1856 in San Francisco and the Vigilance Committee is arresting citizens and has already hanged two men.  Doctor Ashe has managed to escape the committee and reports the troubles to Captain Farragut (Ronald Reagan).  Farragut says he can't do anything without orders from the president.  So long as the committee doesn't attack federal property, there's nothing he can do.  Nonetheless, he takes a longboat to the Barbary Coast of San Francisco to see for himself.  He is unsatisfied by the answers from a committee functionary named McCartney.  McCartney is sending bands of men to arrest all sorts of people without due process.  Farragut checks with the head of the committee, JD Calhoun.  Calhoun denies all blame for McCartney's actions.  As luck would have it, Farragut had left orders with Lt. Burnell to sail three ships to stand off the Barbary Coast.  Farragut threatens the miscreant committee men with a barrage that will flatten the area.  Everyone comes to their senses and the city is saved.

All this was new to me, so I decided to research the topic.  Sure enough, there was a Vigilance Committee that took law into its own hands, once in 1851, and again in 1856.  William Tecumseh Sherman - future arsonist of Atlanta - was a banker in San Francisco at the time and had been asked to command the city militia during this exact period.  His letters show that he was frustrated by the inaction of General Wool - the army commander in the region - and the mixed signals from Governor Johnson.  He also noted that Farragut refused to get involved without orders from President Pierce.  As Pierce had already taken a hands-off attitude in what became Bleeding Kansas, it seemed unlikely he would authorize military action in San Francisco.  In his biography of Farragut, Alfred T Mahan - author of The Influence of Sea Power Upon History - offers an oblique comment that the Navy approved of Farragut's actions during those troubled times in California.  In an article from the National Review, it was noted that Farragut dispatched a ship "for moral effect."

It would appear that The Battle of San Francisco episode vastly expanded Farragut's minimal role in the taming of the Vigilance Committee.  As an active participant in opposing the committee, it is a certainty that Sherman would have mentioned this astonishing effort by Farragut, especially since Sherman had been denied assistance by Farragut the day before the proposed events in the episode.

Farragut was in the region to establish the Mare Island Naval Station and was living aboard a sloop-of-war with his wife, Virginia.  I had thought it odd that she was living on the ship, but the episode was accurate on this point.  There were no accommodations on the island as yet and he was stationed here from 1854 to 1858.  6 years later, he would "Damn the torpedoes" and steam into Mobile Bay during the Civil War.

Disappointing.

Moral Decay

Back in 1976 and 1980, I recall the question as to whether a divorced man could be elected president.  Ronald Reagan's first wife divorced him and he remarried.  Divorced was a moral failure.  If you can't maintain your marriage, how do you run a country?  This was just before divorce really kicked into gear across the country.  It turned out that a divorced man could be elected but it is interesting that the question was asked.

In 1992, many asked if a philanderer could be elected?  Sure, we had had philanderers throughout US history but with the modern media that was not so easy to conceal.  Being unfaithful to one's spouse was a moral failure.  If you can't be true to your spouse, can you be true to the country?  Bill and Hillary appeared on 60 Minutes to say that their marriage wasn't perfect but they had worked through difficulties to become stronger.  It turned out he could be elected, and even re-elected.

Today, the mainstream media are not asking if a woman who advanced her career by having an affair with a married man is electable.  Indeed, in 1994, Kamala Harris was having an affair with California Assembly Speaker Willie Brown.  Brown appointed her to the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and the California Medical Assistance Commission.  She was 29, he was 60.  Gee, this sounds like another scandal from the 90s.  However, the Clinton Presidency mostly ended these sorts of questions, at least as far as Democrats running for office.  Republican sex lives are still fair game.

As mentioned, most of our presidents and vice presidents have had moral failings but they were not widely known among the public.  Now that it is, the public doesn't care.  Yes, one wants to have candidates with the 'correct' policy positions but is there really a lack of such people who also have morals?  It seems so.