It’s easy to get caught up in the latest presidential rankings, isn't it? C-SPAN releases one, historians chime in on social media, and suddenly we're debating whether Lincoln truly deserves the top spot or if William Henry Harrison, who barely served a month, should even be on the list.
I remember seeing one of these surveys pop up and thinking, 'Oh, this will be fun!' It’s a bit like arguing about who’s the greatest athlete of all time – a great way to connect with fellow enthusiasts. But then you see people taking these rankings as gospel, as the definitive word on how history will judge our leaders. And that’s where things get a little… well, misleading.
These rankings, while entertaining, often miss the bigger picture. The whole idea of systematically ranking presidents really took off back in 1948 with Arthur M. Schlesinger Sr. He asked experts to categorize presidents, and later surveys, like C-SPAN's, try to get more granular, asking for scores on things like 'public persuasion' or 'economic management.' The problem is, these categories often reflect our modern sensibilities, not the realities of the past.
Take 'economic management,' for instance. Today, we expect presidents to actively steer the economy. But for a 19th-century president, that concept wouldn't have even made sense. They certainly wanted prosperity, but the day-to-day intervention we associate with economic management is a much more recent invention. So, when you apply today's standards to yesterday's leaders, you're setting them up to score poorly.
And then there's the 'pursued equal justice for all' category. If you take that literally, any president before the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery, would technically fail. Many presidents owned slaves, and the broader society widely accepted the institution. Trying to give one president a few more points than another on this metric can mask the immense, systemic challenges of their eras. It’s like comparing apples and oranges, or perhaps more accurately, comparing a modern smartphone to a rotary phone – they both make calls, but the context and capabilities are worlds apart.
What these rankings often do is focus on the small differences between presidents rather than the monumental challenges they faced. It’s a game, a fun one for history buffs, but not a substitute for understanding the complex tapestry of their times.
Instead of getting lost in the numbers, maybe we should look at what the Presidential Libraries offer. They’re designed to give us different perspectives, to help us learn about leadership, and to explore the events that shaped our nation. They house the records – the textual, electronic, and audiovisual artifacts – that offer genuine insight into the issues confronting our leaders and our country. Through exhibits and events, both virtual and in-person, we can immerse ourselves in the past, understanding the people, places, and events that influenced the presidents themselves.
So, next time you see a presidential ranking, enjoy the debate, but remember it’s more about conversation starters than historical verdicts. True understanding comes from digging deeper, exploring the context, and appreciating the immense weight of history each president carried.
