Again, we pave the way...

There is a rash of articles and web sites dedicated to determining who our "best" Presidents were... and all seem to come on the heels (again) of our "Presidential Report Card" debate that was started years ago. I'm rather convinced that the reason for the interest is the spat of recent criticisms of Presidents that, traditionally, have held high honors... including FDR, Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt and Andrew Jackson (mainly by Beck and other pundits).

Frankly, some of them are kind of scary... one that came out late last year didn't have Washington in the top THREE. The man set the standard, but can't make the top of the list by even three spots??? That's a tough yardstick, right there...

We all have our old data on the Report Card, right? Let's revisit it... let's see what kind of a consensus we can come to as to both A) what should be the determining factors in the final grades and B) where our lists take us.

Old (or submitted) criteria were:

Foreign Policy
Domestic Policy
Economic Policy
Cabinet Appointments
Legacy

Each catagory was graded on a descending scale typified by the revised American Standard System (A=100-90; B=89-80; C=79-70... etc). One point here: At first, I was using the rather dated system of my high school youth... where A=100-92; B=91-84; C=83-76, etc... but Ryan pointed out that this was far more confusing than it needed to be... so we went "new school" simple. However, some of our older submissions might still reflect this older scale of grading... so be aware.

My real question stems from the lists I have seen recently: What do we use as our yardstick? It really can't be personal opinion (not that it would be in every case, but still...) because that is too arbitrary. I think Constitutionality (the President in question's compliance with his role fitting in the framework of the Constitution) has to play a part... but it also can't be the final factor. Precedent, Constitutional compliance, benefit to the nation as a whole... all have to be factors. Any thoughts or comments here?

What I think we should avoid are "hot button" topics... unless we can show valid empirical evidence for our determinations (like my questioning Lincoln's Constitutional authority to do what he did, or Ryan questioning FDR's...). The marks we give each man for the job done need to be objective, rational and defensible at all times.

I'm also concerned about the heavy emphasis that our society lays on "opinion polls" today. They didn't exist in the past as they do now, so I think it might give a skewed view of more modern Presidents when compared to those further back in history. For example, many people assume that Madison was less-then-popular as President because the War of 1812 was so devestating to the economy of the Northeastern US... but those assumptions are based primarily on newspaper articles published by men who had a vested interest in seeing Madison lose the next election cycle, not by actual business men of the NE States. Do you see my point? I'm just not sure that "public opinion" judgements are any closer to actual fact NOW then they were 200 years ago... but should we avoid them altogether, or what?

Is anyone else interested in following this up?