Scholars Rank Clinton Both High and Low - rating the presidents - Brief Article

USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), August, 2001

The University of Illinois at Chicago gathered a nationwide panel of 75 distinguished scholars to explore the characteristics of what separates the great presidents from the not-so-greats and complete a survey that evaluates presidential leadership, job performance, and historical impact. They were asked to choose the 10 best chief executives and rate 39 presidents on a five-point rating system in five categories--leadership, foreign policy, domestic policy, character, and impact. The overall ranking is based on the total.

"The polls show that many scholars believe that the most effective modern presidents from FDR to Clinton, were Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, and Dwight D. Eisenhower," notes Melvin Holli, professor of history. "However, when these same scholars were asked to name the 10 best overall chief executives, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Franklin D. Roosevelt were named."

Bill Clinton's overall ranking fell into the middle of the nation's presidents. He received high marks for political leadership, but low ratings for character brought down his overall score. "Predictably, many of the scholars polled were rather harsh on Clinton, giving him a ranking in 'character' as one of the worst presidents, surpassed by only [Richard] Nixon and [Warren G.] Harding," explains associate professor of history Fred Beuttler. "On the other hand, he was ranked quite high on political leadership and his domestic policy accomplishments"

When asked about specific presidents, various scholars surveyed had this to say:

University of Texas government professor Walter Dean Burnham maintained that Jimmy Carter was "Incapable of working effectively with a heavily Democratic Congress [and had] no clear agenda--when you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there." As for George H.W. Bush, "He lacked `the vision thing' and knew it. No domestic agenda"

University of Texas historian Robert Divine praised Ronald Reagan, stating that "He made the presidency an effective office again and helped pave the way for the end of the Cold War." On the other hand, Clinton was "A tragic waste of a great political talent. ... His contemporary popularity, like that of [Calvin] Coolidge in the 1920s, was largely the result of a fortuitous economic boom."

Columbia University historian Henry Graft downgraded Clinton because "He wasted a historic opportunity during a great period of peace and prosperity to solve a variety of domestic problems." Joan Hoff, an Ohio University historian, agreed, pointing out that "He squandered his understandings of foreign and domestic problems by refusing to make hard decisions on controversial domestic issues and making too-little-too-late decisions in foreign policy."

Russell Weigley of Temple University indicated that John F. Kennedy was "One of the most effective presidents, less for his accomplishments than for challenging the nation to be better in aspiring to realize its highest aspirations." On the other hand, he said, Clinton's "personal failings compromised any accomplishments he managed, [for] he always had trouble in keeping to a consistent policy course."