I'm surprised you're surprised ...

... that I don't include FDR in my top 5. Look, if the standard is chief executives that wielded the most power, then sure he's in. But I never considered that the threshold for making the top 5. And it occurs to me that we never did define that threshold in specific terms ... so let me offer a version: "He who demonstrated exemplary service and results in both foreign and domestic affairs; commitment to the Constitution (which he is sworn to defend); ethics practiced; and the over all health of the nation at the time of his departure."

If FDR had even a "mediocre" domestic tenure I would be inclined to consider him for a top 5 spot for being at the helm during WWII. And before blood shoots out of your eyes Jambo, consider a few things from my perspective. First, the 4 terms. We rushed to make sure that never happened again by passing the 22nd Amendment. Were his 4 terms to his credit, historically speaking, I don't see why such a national push for the Amendment would have been made. There is no question that it was felt necessary due to FDR. Secondly, your comparison to Reagan is curious. Yes, they both had unquestionable success versus an enemy whom represented evil incarnate during their time. However, my criteria (and my definition above leaves room for just this type of subjective influence), includes how the Chief Executive of the government caused (or prevented) the intrusion of that government into the individual's life, or if you will, the over all growth of government. This, for me, lends itself to the commitment to the Constitution question, and the overall health of the nation at the time of his departure. I won't rehash the New Deal arguments, but was Reagan guilty ("guilty" from the perspective of a conservative/Libertarian), of an unprecedented growth of government into nearly every facet of American life? The alphabet soup of programs and departments, over half of which were found to be un-Constitutional? Of the attempt to literally stack the Supreme Court? Interning American citizens (and absent our Jackson thread I probably wouldn't have even included that, I dislike such judgments during the "fog of war")? FDR reshaped what the individual American EXPECTS the government to do. It has irrevocably changed our Republic for the worse in my estimation. Reagan was the exact opposite in terms of his effect on the government's role in the individual's life. If the biggest success of FDR's domestic tenure is social security, then I think the evidence speaks for itself ... but that's swerving into New Deal specifics, an old and unsettled argument. Yes, and I know, I know, he was faced with an unprecedented economic crisis, etc. I get that. But his reaction, dictated by his ideology, was to use government as a solution - whatever else we disagree on via the New Deal, we can agree on that, he thought government the solution. And that posit - that in times of economic crisis (or otherwise) we must look to government for a solution, to bail us out - is diametrically opposed to my own ideology. New Deal makes the Great Society politically possible. And between those 2 the Bush/Obama bail outs are made possible. More than any other Chief Executive FDR redefined the role, scope and size of government, and perhaps most damning of all (in my opinion) redefined what the individual American expects government to do FOR him. I find this damaging beyond description. And as such how could I include such a man in my top 5?

And by the way, I shall endeavour to complete my report card. I didn't "abandon" it because of lack of interest. Quite the opposite. I so wanted to do an exemplary job that I made the task into a monumental undertaking psychologically, and never felt I had the adequate time to dedicate that it deserved. As I said, I shall endeavour to correct that, its' completion would be the jewel in the Bund crown.