Thomas Jefferson's 275th Birthday

---

---

"I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."

President John F. Kennedy
At a dinner honoring Nobel Prize winners of the Western Hemisphere
The White House
April 29, 1962

---

It was 275 years ago today that my favorite president, Thomas Jefferson, was born.

Jefferson was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence and may well have been the most brilliant of the Founding Fathers — but he probably draws mixed reviews today.

A product of colonial Virginia, Jefferson benefited from the work of slaves on several plantations. He also, as Fawn Brodie's 1974 biography of Jefferson, "An Intimate History," revealed, fathered children with Sally Hemings, a slave who was said to be the half–sister of Jefferson's deceased wife.

Critics of Jefferson contend that Jefferson's ownership of slaves is a clear contradiction of his assertion that "all men are created equal."

But to focus on that is to force Jefferson, in hindsight, to live according to standards that were in place nearly two centuries after the end of his presidency. Ironically, Jefferson might not be an especially popular candidate for president today. He was tall — 6 feet 2½ inches — and voters do tend to prefer tall presidential candidates, but he was perhaps a little too relaxed for many voters' tastes. Jefferson, a senator of the day remarked, "sits in a lounging manner on one hip, commonly." He wasn't a particularly finicky dresser, either. He paid little attention to fashion and preferred to dress in whatever was comfortable, resulting in frequent mixing of styles from different periods.

Most fair–minded historians prefer to focus on his advocacy of the principle of individual rights, his championing of religious freedom and tolerance and the Louisiana Purchase, which was made during Jefferson's first term as president and doubled the size of the United States.

Jefferson considered himself a Deist, and his thoughts on religious freedom stemmed from Virginia's laws that made it a crime "not to baptize infants in the Anglican church; dissenters were denied office, civil or military; children could be taken from their parents if the parents failed to profess the prescribed creeds," wrote Jon Meacham in "The Art of Power."

"Jefferson believed it unjust (and unwise) to use public funds to support an established church and to link civil rights to religious observance," Meacham wrote. "He said such a system led to 'spiritual tyranny.' In theological terms, according to notes he made on John Locke, Jefferson concurred with a Christian tradition that held the church should not depend on state–enforced compulsion."

As for the Louisiana Purchase, it is hard to imagine any acquisition by any country that has been as financially feasible. For about 3 cents an acre, the United States acquired all or part of Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming and Montana.

Jefferson had authorized his negotiators to purchase only New Orleans and West Florida, but Napoleon, strapped for cash on the brink of war with Britain, offered the Louisiana Purchase. Jefferson had his doubts about the constitutionality of the deal but quickly agreed to it before Napoleon could change his mind.

Remembering JFK

---

---

It is hard to imagine John F. Kennedy at 100, but that is what he would be if he still lived on this day in 2017.

Of course, Kennedy is not still living. He has been dead nearly 54 years. He was assassinated in the streets of this very city.

His image is frozen in memory, a vivid yet moving figure for those old enough to remember him, a youthful image in the history books for those who are not. He is still 46 years old and will continue to be 46 years old for all who study history — even though all who are 46 now or will be 46 in the future were born after he died.

He will always be youthful, a naturally dark–haired president with two young children and a beautiful young wife. But that wife and one of those children are dead now, and the surviving child will be 60 later this year.

Time certainly does march on.

I observed on the 50th anniversary of Kennedy's assassination that so much has been written about that event in American history that it is hard to think of anything new to add. It is the same with the 100th anniversary of Kennedy's birth. (Excuse a little musing here, but since today is the centennial of JFK's birth, wouldn't it make sense, for consistency's sake, to call the 2013 anniversary of his assassination a semicentennial?)

Only a few months before her own death, Marilyn Monroe serenaded the president with a breathy rendition of "Happy Birthday." Even though he is not with us, perhaps that is the best we can do — wish him a "Happy Birthday" in absentia.

---

---

It is easy to think of the Kennedy highlights — his inspirational speeches, his vigorous and reassuring demeanor. It is tougher to challenge preconceived notions about Kennedy that have had decades to harden in the public mind.

So without wasting much time on discussions (bordering on debates) of his strengths or weaknesses, it is probably best to remember that John F. Kennedy was a man. He wasn't perfect and certainly didn't seem so to the people of his time, but no president has been, even those presidents we honor and admire today — like Washington or Lincoln. He had his flaws, like all of us, but he also had a moral compass, like most of us, and it was to the great fortune of this nation that his compass did not mislead either him or us.

As today is Memorial Day, I would just like to observe that all who serve our country are deserving of our gratitude — from those who serve in the Oval Office to those who serve on the battlefield and all those who serve and have served in between. Man of them are also in absentia.

To those presidents like Kennedy who served in both the Oval Office and the battlefield, we owe a special debt for their service.

Thoughts on Washington's Actual Birthday

---

---

Today is George Washington's real birthday — not the manufactured Presidents Day that serves as the commemoration for Washington and Abraham Lincoln, both of whom were born in February but neither of whom was born on Presidents Day.

When I was a little boy in elementary school, the practice was to recognize each president on his birthday. My teachers would decorate one bulletin board with images of Washington and another with images of Lincoln, and they would talk about each president on the appropriate day.

Then, at some point, it was decided that it was better to honor both presidents with a single day.

I don't know how or why it was decided that would be better — or for whom. Maybe Lincoln's actual birthday distracted too much from Valentine's Day two days later. More likely, it interfered with Valentine's Day sales.

Whatever the reason for it, that is how things were done when I was a little boy. And then that is what changed.

A lot of other things have changed over the years. Whether they are connected is not necessarily for me to say but rather for others to decide for themselves.

But it seems to me that the clear theme is a greater disregard for history than at any other time in my life.

That is certainly saying something. After all, history was never a popular subject when I was in school.

I'm not really sure how I developed my interest in history, actually. Seems I've always had it, and it distresses me to see the lack of respect for the lessons of history.

After all, as George Santayana wrote, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." And we humans seem determined never to learn from the past.

The ongoing debate over guns is a good example of that. Proponents of what is popularly known as gun control like to speak about it in terms of need — i.e., a hunter doesn't need a certain number of bullets to kill a duck or a deer.

I never believed the Bill of Rights was about needs — other than the fact that the Founding Fathers believed that Americans needed to have their rights spelled out in writing.

In the 18th century, the right to defend yourself and your freedom against all enemies, foreign and domestic, was very important to the men who had just fought a revolutionary war against a tyrannical ruler.

Although I have done other things in my life, at heart I am — and always will be — a journalist. As such, I value things like freedom of speech and freedom of the press, which were just as important to the Founding Fathers as the right of self–defense. So was freedom of religion. And a lot of other things.

We don't speak of things like the right to a trial by a jury of one's peers as needs. We speak of such things as rights — which are, I suppose, special kinds of needs.

Free men do need to have rights that are constant and respected. And such rights cannot be doled out as gifts from the government to the masses. They aren't the government's to give — or take — away.

The Founding Fathers essentially told the generations to come that, if they lived on this land, they had all the rights (as well as the responsibilities) that come with freedom.

(And over the years, by the way, the procedure for someone from another country to become an American citizen has evolved and been spelled out clearly. Nothing has been hidden from potential citizens. There are no surprises, and all are welcome — but that is not unconditional.

(By definition, anyone who attempts to enter the United States illegally is not an immigrant. That person is an alien.)

If the government can restrict a single right that is mentioned in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, what is to prevent it from restricting other rights?

What is to keep the government from shutting down news outlets that have been critical of its performance? Or attempting to intimidate citizens to keep them from speaking out?

What is to keep the government from telling you which religious institution, if any, you may attend?

What is to keep the government from conducting all legal proceedings in private, presided over by judges who have made up their minds before hearing a single witness?

Well, that's the main problem I have with the gun control debate.

A lesser — but not inconsequential — issue I have with it is the fact that, typically, when such a tragedy occurs (whether it involves guns, public or private health and safety measures or whatever), the legislation that is usually proposed is aimed at dealing with some aspect that made the tragedy possible.

In the case of the Newtown shootings, none of the proposals I have read would have prevented that tragedy from happening.

That's frustrating, I know. I guess it's human nature — or a free human's nature — to believe there is a quick and ready solution to all of life's problems.

In this case, I have yet to find one.

The guns were purchased legally by a middle–aged woman who most likely was subjected to background checks prior to purchase. The weapons were used by her son, who had not paid for them, who had in fact killed his mother to obtain them.

They were not automatic weapons, which are the kind of weapons that spray many bullets with a single pull of the trigger. Such weapons have been strictly regulated — and deservedly so — for decades.

They were semiautomatic weapons — handguns like the ones tens of millions of Americans own to protect themselves and their families. Those Americans don't necessarily go hunting for sport — neither did the Founding Fathers, for that matter, although many, if not all, hunted for food.

That was another practical application of firearms for people of the 18th century — but it was also practical to say that free citizens had the right to defend themselves against any enemies.

I can only wonder what Washington would think of this debate.

Failing the Test on Constitution Day

Yesterday was Constitution Day.

We didn't have Constitution Day when I was in school. But we did have what was called Citizenship Day, which was observed in May. Actually, Citizenship Day was observed on a Sunday so it had no specific influence on anything we did in school. In fact, by the time Citizenship Day was observed (the third Sunday in May), school either had dismissed for the summer or was about to dismiss for the summer.

Constitution Day, though, is different. It was created five years ago (September 17 was designated because it was on that day in 1787 that the Constitution was signed) and was officially named "Constitution Day and Citizenship Day." According to the law that created it, all schools that receive any federal funds must emphasize the history of the Constitution on that day. Many colleges and universities have turned it into week–long events that give some attention to the citizenship tests that immigrants must take to become U.S. citizens.

When I was a child, I was an exception to the rule. I have always been interested in American history. Maybe that was due to the fact that my parents invested in encyclopedias when I was young, and I had information sources readily available to me at home. I can't tell you how many times I heard a reference to something on the radio or TV that aroused my curiosity. When I asked my mother about it, she inevitably told me to look it up.

But even before I could read, I remember my mother reading stories to me about heroes in American history.

Somehow I developed an interest in the American presidency. I remember vividly that, when I was in first grade, I could recite all the presidents in chronological order — a talent that seemed to astonish all the adults in my world. For some reason, it didn't strike me as being anything remarkable, but I dutifully recited the presidents for any adult who asked me to do so.

I can still recite the presidents in chronological order. There are more of them now, of course, but the additions to the list have come in my lifetime. I guess that makes it easier.

Sometimes, when I was a child, I received a small reward for performing this "trick." I must confess, there were times when I felt like a puppy who was encouraged to "beg" before being given a favorite treat. But, even when I was 6 years old, I remember being aware of the fact that this was something that not everyone could do.

I guess I realized that most people — adults as well as my peers — wouldn't be able to tell you who William Henry Harrison or Franklin Pierce or Rutherford Hayes were. But it seemed inconceivable to me that anyone would not know who George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were. Their portraits always seemed to adorn the classroom walls when I was in school — and they were particularly prevalent in February, the month in which both men were born.

Things have changed more than I thought since I was in elementary school.

This week, News9 in Oklahoma City reported the results of a survey of Oklahoma high school students. The survey was commissioned by the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs in observance of Constitution Day. Questions were taken from the citizenship tests that immigrants must take to become American citizens.

The results were not encouraging.

Only 23% of respondents gave the correct answer to this question: "Who was the first President of the United States?"

Students were asked 10 questions. Immigrants who take the citizenship test must score 60% or better to pass, but only 3% of the students in Oklahoma would have scored that well.

A spokesman for the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs observed that this outcome is not unique to Oklahoma. He reported similar results in Arizona. That doesn't bode well for schoolchildren in the rest of the nation.

No child left behind?

Democrats, Expectations and Governing

---

---

Lately, I've been reading a fascinating article in The New Republic by Jonathan Chait — "Why the Democrats Can't Govern."

It carries the subheadline, "Look who's killing Obama's agenda now."

"The last Democrat who held the White House, Bill Clinton, saw the core of his domestic agenda come to ruin, his political support collapse, and his failure spawn a massive Republican resurgence that made progressive reform impossible for a decade to come," writes Chait. "The Democrat who last held the White House before that, Jimmy Carter, saw the exact same thing happen to him."

That's a little simplistic for my taste, but it raises a significant point. Will Rogers, who has been dead for nearly 74 years, may have put it better: "I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat."

Let me backtrack a little and examine the approval ratings for three previous Democratic presidents when they took office after their elections.

Less than a week after he took office in 1993, Clinton's approval rating was 58%, according to Gallup. About two weeks after his inauguration in 1977, Carter's approval rating was 66%, according to Gallup. And, as we all know, Barack Obama's approval rating around the time he was sworn in exceeded Carter's.

The last Democratic president before Carter, Lyndon Johnson, became president following the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963, then he sought a full four–year term the following year. He won in a landslide and, around the time of his inauguration, Gallup reported that his approval rating was 70%.

Yet, despite these high approval ratings, Johnson, Carter and Clinton saw squabbles in their own party that contributed to midterm setbacks. In Clinton's case, the result was more than a party setback — it was a Republican takeover of both the House and Senate.

We haven't seen these kinds of problems when Republicans have been in charge. After they took control of Congress, Republicans had to wait six years until a Republican was in the White House, but once George W. Bush was in the Oval Office, Republicans put aside any differences they had and supported the White House's agenda.

You could argue all day and all night about whether the agenda was right, but there was little dissension among Republicans on most policies when they were being considered by the legislative branch.

In the public's mind, that creates the aura of unity. The intelligence that was behind the invasion of Iraq and the logic that allowed banks and corporations to make huge gambles that backfired may be called into question now, but, at the time the policies were debated in the halls of Congress, nary a dissenting voice could be heard from the Republican side. In fact, some Democrats lent their support.

"George W. Bush came to office having lost the popular vote, with only 50 Republicans in the Senate," Chait writes, pointing out that conventional wisdom suggested that Bush would have to cut back on his agenda. "Instead, Bush managed to enact several rounds of tax cuts that substantially exceeded those in his campaign platform, along with two war resolutions, a Medicare prescription drug benefit designed to maximize profits for the health care industry, energy legislation, education reform, and sundry other items. Whatever the substantive merits of this agenda, its passage represented an impressive feat of political leverage, accomplished through near–total partisan discipline."

You have to wonder sometimes if there is something in the Democratic DNA that kicks in when the Democrats are in charge and prevents them from enacting their proposals. After all, Democrats today hold about as many House seats as they did in Clinton's first two years in office — and, on the Senate side, with the two independents who caucus with them (and, presumably, Al Franken, if he is declared the official winner of the Minnesota Senate race), Democrats control more seats than they have since the Carter years.

Democrats should be able to push through their agenda, shouldn't they? Republicans did it with a lot less. Yet, as Chait observes, "[a]t a time when the country desperately needs a coherent response to the array of challenges it faces, the congressional arm of the Democratic Party remains mired in fecklessness, parochialism, and privilege."

This can lead to a president — even one who was elected overwhelmingly — appearing impotent to the public. And that can result in challenges within one's own party when the next presidential election cycle comes around. President Carter had to fight Sen. Edward Kennedy for his nomination in 1980. President Clinton managed to avoid a serious challenge, but his party had already lost control of Congress.

Republican incumbents, on the other hand, have had only one serious challenge to a sitting president in my lifetime — in 1976, when an unelected president (Ford) turned back the challenge from Ronald Reagan to win his party's nomination.

Forty-one years ago today, after narrowly winning the New Hampshire primary against the write–in insurgent candidacy of Eugene McCarthy, President Lyndon Johnson, at the end of a speech to the nation, dropped a political bombshell — "I shall not seek and I will not accept the nomination of my party for another term as your president," Johnson told his stunned listeners. You can see it in the clip that is attached to this post.

It was a shocking statement from a man who, less than four years earlier, had received the highest percentage of the popular vote ever received by any presidential candidate. But two years after Johnson was elected, Democrats lost four Senate seats and nearly four dozen House seats. Democrats rebounded, for a time, during the Watergate era, but, in general, they struggled for the next four decades.

In Johnson's day, Democrats were a little more unified than they were in the 1970s, when Carter was president, or the 1990s, when Clinton was president, or even today. But their support for the Vietnam War was costly, and their support for civil rights led, as Johnson predicted, to the party's loss of the South for at least a generation.

The Democrats' legislative woes precede Johnson's presidency, however. Chait makes a good point when he says, "Democrats are trapped by their past."

Chait's explanation: "Since Democrats controlled the Congress almost continuously for more than 60 years beginning in 1933, the culture of Congress left a deeper imprint on their party. Republicans, shut out from the perks of majority status, finally decided ... that their only path to power lay in partisan discipline. Democrats, on the other hand, came of age under the old Democratic chieftains, and they have mostly aped that style. They do not fall in line, even under a Democratic president who mostly shares their goals."

Thus, even when the stakes are as great as they are in 2009, the party in power lacks the discipline to meet the challenge effectively. Obama frequently reminds listeners that he inherited these problems. That may be true, but how long will the voters, facing the prospects of losing their jobs and/or homes, be willing to accept that?

In 2010, a majority of voters may not be thinking that Obama inherited these problems. They may be thinking of something Rogers said back in the 1930s: "If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"

By then, the problem for Democrats may be that voters will see an abundance of stupidity on display on the majority side.

The Last (?) Word on C-SPAN's Rankings

I don't know if, as my headline suggests, this is the last word on the presidential rankings published by C–SPAN during the weekend.

But I read something today that did provide an answer — sort of — to a question I asked, in a roundabout way, the other day.

A CNN.com article has summarized the survey's findings — and suggests that it was appropriate that Abraham Lincoln finished first on the occasion of the bicentennial of his birth.

The article acknowledges, however, that Lincoln also finished first in the survey that was conducted in 2000 — so the fact that he finished first in the latest survey does not appear to be, in any way, connected to the 200th anniversary of his birth.

Lincoln's occupation of the top spot may be the most obvious coincidence, but there are a couple of other ironic anniversaries that haven't — as I recall — been mentioned in any of the articles I've read about the survey, whether those articles appeared in blogs or sites run by professional news organizations.

For example, this year is the 100th anniversary of the conclusion of Theodore Roosevelt's presidency. Roosevelt was ranked fourth in both the 2000 and 2009 surveys.

And, in 1809, the year that Lincoln was born, Thomas Jefferson's presidency came to an end. Jefferson was ranked seventh on C–SPAN's list.

Anyway, the "question" to which I referred had to do with why Ulysses S. Grant jumped from 33rd in the 2000 survey to 23rd in the current one.

Grant's traditionally low marks may be due, as CNN wrote, to the corruption of others in his administration and the record of the Reconstruction effort over which he presided.

But a Howard University historian observed that Grant may be "getting a bounce" from the additional attention that has been paid to Lincoln in his bicentennial year.

"Grant won the war for Lincoln," the historian said. "A new look at the totality of his career may be improving his presidential stature."

I still think, as I mentioned the other day, that Grant may be getting more credit for his support for civil rights and his opposition to the kind of violence practiced by domestic terrorists like the Ku Klux Klan. But Grant's role in winning the Civil War was something I overlooked, largely because it is not something I consider part of his presidential record.

I also mentioned the other day that Bill Clinton is viewed more favorably in the current survey than he was in the one that was conducted in his last year in office. At the same time, I observed that recent presidents should be excluded from such rankings until history has had an opportunity to adequately assess them.

Which brings me to a point made by another historian: "Bill Clinton and Ulysses S. Grant aren't often mentioned in the same sentence — until now. Participants in the latest [survey] have boosted each man significantly higher than in the original survey conducted in 2000. All of which goes to show two things: the fluidity with which presidential reputations are judged, and the difficulty of assessing any president who has only just recently left office."

Incidentally, there was another major shift in the presidential rankings that I didn't mention in my post on Sunday.

Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, who was Grant's successor, fell from the 26th spot in 2000 to the 33rd spot in the current survey. The reasons for that shift are unclear — although Hayes was sort of the George W. Bush of the 19th century. He lost the popular vote, as Bush did in 2000, but won the electoral vote by a single vote after a congressional commission worked out a deal instead of putting the decision in the hands of the House, as required by the Constitution.

To this day, Hayes is the only president whose election was decided in this fashion.

Democrats referred to Hayes as "Rutherfraud," much like many Democrats referred to Florida as "Fraudia" after the disputed 2000 election.

I don't know if this had any bearing on Hayes' fall in the rankings, but liquor was banned at White House functions during his presidency, largely because Hayes' wife, Lucy, was opposed to it. She was nicknamed "Lemonade Lucy," ostensibly because lemonade — or something equally bland — was served at formal dinners, giving rise to the statement that "water flowed like wine" at the Hayes White House.

More Response to C-SPAN's Presidential Rankings

At the All Spin Zone blog, Steven Reynolds has a very brief rebuttal to C-SPAN's rankings of the presidents — a subject of which I wrote in considerable detail yesterday.

Reynolds seems to take exception to the placement of George W. Bush (36th) in the rankings. I mentioned yesterday that I would advocate not including any president whose term ended less than 20 years earlier, and I stand by that. But I'm not an historian, and I was not included in C-SPAN's survey. And C-SPAN did not ask me about any restrictions I would impose for inclusion in the list.

So, Bush is on the list — even though I still believe that not enough time has passed since the end of his presidency to adequately judge its impact on America and the world. In the years to come, he and his defenders may be proven correct when they say that history will vindicate him.

Reynolds proudly proclaims, in his headline, that "George Bush is NOT the Worst President EVER."

Of course, that is a matter of opinion, like everything else in the survey — and you can see the details of the survey at C-SPAN's website.

But one thing that is not a matter of opinion is the length of William Henry Harrison's presidency. Reynolds says Harrison served 32 days. I'm not a mathematician, but, based on the date that he was sworn in (March 4, 1841) and the date that he died (April 4, 1841), I would say that his presidency was actually 31 days in length.

Although I guess — to use a phrase that is famously attributed to Bill Clinton — that may depend on "what your definition of 'is' is."

A president is typically sworn in at noon. I presume it was done that way when inaugurations were held on March 4 instead of January 20, as they are today. So Harrison would have been president for half of March 4. And it was only minutes past midnight on April 4 when Harrison died, so he really didn't serve as president very long on that day.

That is probably splitting hairs, though. The point is that Harrison's presidential tenure was brief. And, because that is so, I've always tended to reject the notion of including him in a list of presidential rankings. I've always felt much the same way about James Garfield — who, as I mentioned yesterday, had been president for about four months when he was shot, then he lingered for two more months before he died.

Apparently, based on Bush's ranking, Reynolds concluded his very short assessment by asking, "Why do historians hate America?"

If one is dismissed as "hating America" because one disapproves of the job George W. Bush did — and that appears to be the sole criterion Reynolds uses for reaching his conclusion — Reynolds must feel very lonely these days.

Bush's approval rating dropped below 40 permanently — and often dipped below 30 — in the last two years of his presidency.

Polls and surveys are nothing more than snapshots of public opinion. They tell you how the public in general feels about a person or an issue at a particular point in time.

But Bush's approval ratings were consistently low. Does that mean that the vast majority of American citizens hate America? On the contrary. I think the vast majority of Americans love their country — but most of them came to the conclusion that a cretin was in charge.

Ranking the Presidents

Tomorrow is Presidents' Day, so I guess it should come as no surprise that C-SPAN has surveyed a bunch of historians to come up with a ranking of the presidents, from best to worst.

This kind of list is always interesting — and debate-provoking. In 2001, former White House counsel John Dean asserted that such a list "is nothing but high-grade hokum, mixed with a lot of bunkum."

My primary argument would be that C-SPAN's ranking includes every president, and, while it is tempting to pass judgment on George W. Bush, his administration hasn't been over for a full month yet (even though there are certainly those who would argue that Bush simply stopped governing — or attempting to govern — well before his presidency ended on Jan. 20, 2009).

I would establish certain rules that would exclude recent presidents from being ranked — on the grounds that history really hasn't had a chance to fully assess those presidents' contributions.

How much time should be given? Well, I guess history is dynamic in that sense, and interpretations of individual presidents may be subject to change long after their administrations end. Harry Truman and Richard Nixon, for example, were both regarded more favorably about 20 years after they left office than they were when their presidencies ended. C-SPAN's rankings indicate that Truman is still as well regarded as he was in the survey that was taken nearly 10 years ago, while Nixon has slipped a couple of spots.

Anyway, I would say that any presidency that ended in the last 20 years should not be considered. That would remove both of the Bushes and Bill Clinton from consideration, although the elder Bush would be eligible in the first survey that is taken after the next presidential election.

Twenty years is an arbitrary figure, though. Based on my personal observation, it would be wiser to allow 30 years — thus giving history additional time to render its assessment. Using that yardstick, the Reagan and Carter presidencies would not be eligible for ranking this time.

I'm going to stick with the 20-year restriction, though. There are many people who believe that sufficient time has passed to judge the Reagan presidency, which ended on Jan. 20, 1989.

Incidentally, for the record, C-SPAN's Top 10 were:

1. Abraham Lincoln (1861-1865).


2. George Washington (1789-1797).


3. Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945).


4. Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909).


5. Harry S. Truman (1945-1953).


6. John F. Kennedy (1961-1963).


7. Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809).


8. Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961).


9. Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921).


10. Ronald Reagan (1981-1989).

Also for the record, the rankings of the last three presidents (who, as I've said, I would not consider because not enough time has passed since the conclusions of their presidencies) were 15th (Bill Clinton), 18th (George H.W. Bush) and 36th (George W. Bush).

It's worth noting, however, that George W. Bush was ranked behind nearly every 20th century president (the exception was Warren G. Harding) — and most of the 19th century presidents who finished behind Bush essentially passed the buck in the years before the Civil War — the exceptions to that were Andrew Johnson (next to last), who succeeded Lincoln after the war was over and became the first president to be impeached by the House and tried by the Senate, and William Henry Harrison (ranked 39th), who caught a cold that became pneumonia and took his life one month after he took office in 1841.

In fact, due to the brevity of his presidency, I don't think it's fair to rank Harrison at all. Even Pope John Paul I had a longer reign. But C-SPAN included James Garfield in the rankings, and his presidency wasn't much longer. He was shot four months after taking office and died two months after that — but at least he lived long enough to do something while he was president.

I don't suppose that I have any serious arguments with C-SPAN's Top 10, other than my reservations about including Reagan in such a list. Most of the presidents on the list had to face at least one national crisis — and did so quite well.

C-SPAN rates James Buchanan as the worst American president, which leads me to a technical point. There are 42 names on the list, but there were actually 43 presidents prior to Barack Obama. Grover Cleveland served as president twice, but his terms were not consecutive. I tend to think that his presidencies should be judged separately since they governed over two different time periods. But C-SPAN's list treats him as one president, and he falls right in the middle, at #21 (between James Madison and Gerald Ford).

I can't argue with Buchanan's placement, though. When Southern states began to secede in the waning days of his administration, Buchanan contended that secession was illegal. But he also took the position that going to war to prevent it was illegal — so he did nothing.

While it's far from certain, if Buchanan had taken some sort of action to stop the Southern states from seceding, history might have been changed — and the country might have been spared the anguish of the Civil War. So, based on that particular "what-if" from history, I would rank Buchanan as the worst president in American history.

It's interesting to look at C-SPAN's rankings and see what has changed since the 2000 survey. Most of the rankings haven't changed much. In most cases, a president moved up or fell back a spot or two, if that. But there are a few noteworthy changes.

Clinton, for example, is regarded more favorably than he was just before he left office. In 2000, he was ranked 21st. In 2009, as I mentioned earlier, his ranking is 15th.

And, inexplicably, Ulysses S. Grant jumped 10 spots in the rankings, from 33rd to 23rd. Why? I don't know. Perhaps it is because his presidency took a hard line against domestic violence, particularly the sort practiced by groups like the Ku Klux Klan, and was supportive of civil rights.

But his presidency was still plagued with corruption, and most historians would probably say that he was a better general than he was a president.