OBAMA’S RANKING AMONG PRESIDENTS
Barack Obama recently was ranked the 12th best president in United States history.
Twelfth. Best. Ever.
Folks who examine these lists that are prepared ad nauseam each time a presidential term ends understand they’re a product of the historians and political scientists surveyed, in this case by C-SPAN. Like the historians and political scientists at most universities, they’re overwhelming liberal in their political persuasion. So, for liberal scholars to place perhaps the most liberal president near the top quarter of the pantheon of presidents is hardly surprising.
But Dr. Paul Kengor, professor of political science and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values (a conservative think tank) at Grove City College, says the ranking is out of kilter even for an overwhelmingly left-leaning group.
“I find this utterly perplexing,” he said in an article that first appeared at The American Spectator. “Do the exercise yourself. Go through those 10 categories [of ranking criteria]. Ascribe Obama a score of 1 [lowest] to 10 [highest], and do so relative to other presidents you’ve ranked. Where would you give Obama a 10? How many (if any) scores above a 5 would you give Obama? … Try to remove your ideological lens, whether left or right, and assess these questions.”
The C-SPAN survey criteria are public persuasion, crisis leadership, economic management, moral authority, international relations, administrative skills, relations with Congress, vision/ setting an agenda, pursued equal justice for all and performed within context of time.
Let’s see. Based on Obama’s 2008 campaign, he certainly would have been given high marks for public persuasion — remember “Hope and Change”? — and vision/setting an agenda. But the ranking is supposed to be based on an entire term in office.
Many would say the first black president pursued justice for all, but others would argue he was one of the most race-based presidents in U.S. history. But let’s give him his top mark there.
In the categories of international relations and relations with Congress, Obama would have to be given low marks.
Loyalists might point to the one-sided Iran nuclear agreement as his singular international achievement, but the terrorism sponsoring Middle East nation already has repeatedly violated the agreement. Is the Middle East more peaceful? Kengor wonders. Are Arab-Israeli relations better? Is Russia a tame bear? Were there missile reduction treaties or chemical weapons bans?
Obama had his way with an all-Democratic Congress for his first two years in office but could not and would not deal with a divided Congress his next four and a Republican Congress his last two. Choosing not to compromise, he went his own way with his executive pen. Not surprisingly, little that was accomplished is permanent.
Economic management was little better. The recession he inherited ended five months after he took office, but the economy for the remainder of his eight years could never be said to be roaring.
Indeed, a Kengor colleague points out, during Obama’s presidency, the average annual real GDP growth was 1.5 percent, “the weakest economic performance of any post WWII president, and the fourth worst ever.” In 2016, his final year as president, it grew only 1.6 percent. His predecessor, George W. Bush, on whom Obama liked to heap blame, presided over a better mark, as did Jimmy Carter, considered one of the weakest modern-day presidents on the economy.
Public persuasion? Can’t go very high there. Though he was voted a second term, he was the first president ever re-elected with fewer popular votes, fewer Electoral College votes, a lower percentage and percentage margin of victory, and winning fewer states than his first go-around. Further, he never had sustained popularity and could not push across a highly favored Democratic successor who promised to continue his policies.
Obama’s agenda produced the Affordable Care Act, said to be his most shining domestic achievement, but it had a balky start, was a drag on the economy as businesses declined to expand until they knew its effect on them, never was popular with the American people, and is expected to be repealed and replaced under his successor.
Crisis leadership? Moral authority? Administrative skills? Where does one find a category in which he was better than around three-fourths of his predecessors?
“In short,” wrote Kengor, who opined that some scholars must have given Obama marks in the top five of all presidents, “I’m stunned. Based on the criteria we were given for ranking these presidents, I cannot conceive how Obama could possibly score well. … Clearly, the liberal scholars were not able to separate their partisanship when it came to objectively judging Obama.”
The passing of time often changes these rankings. Just in the past 35 years, for instance, Ulysses S. Grant has risen as many as 14 places, John F. Kennedy has fallen as many as 10, and Ronald Reagan — currently ranked ninth — has fallen 10, risen 20 places and then fallen five.
No matter what people may think of his achievement in breaking the racial barrier for U.S. presidents, Obama, examined objectively, will not remain in the top quartile of chief executives.