Ranking+the+Presidents

[] Was President Reagan a good president? Was President Clnton a good president?

Pete Martinez forwarded this article to us in light oof Andy Robertson's opening address. On another note I have 5 DVD's of Andy's talk; if you missed it and want to borrow the DVD let Mirla know.

** Do African-Americans Rank Presidents Differently? ** By Ronald Walters //Mr. Walters is professor of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland.//

I believe that it matters, with respect to both their character and the scope of their agenda, whether presidents govern in a manner that constructs a balance between majoritarian interests and the inclusion of excluded groups. Given that so much of American politics has been devoted to the debate over the inclusion of excluded groups -- blacks and other racial minorities, women, the elderly, the disabled and the poor -- it is only fair to suggest that one standard of greatness is whether or not a president has achieved such a balance. Indeed, in practical terms, this standard constitutes a qualitative difference in the current evaluation of presidential greatness between the white and black intellectuals. One illustration of this difference came in an end-of-the-millennium assessment of important 20th century presidents by the //New York Times Magazine//. The editors asked historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. to replicate a survey of presidential greatness that his father had previously performed in 1948 and in 1962. So, in 1996, Schlesinger asked 32 historians and two politicians (including only one black professor) to use their own criteria to evaluate all presidents, deciding whether they belonged in the categories of "Great," "Near Great," "High Average," "Average," "Below Average," or "Failure." At the same time, Professors Hanes Walton, Jr. and Robert Smith surveyed 44 black political scientists and historians for an analysis of presidential leadership for their recent textbook, //American Politics and the African-American Quest for Universal Freedom//. They used the specific criteria of the racial attitudes of presidents and the racial legislation they proposed. They developed the categories of "White Supremacist," "Racist," "Racially Neutral," "Racially Ambivalent" and "Antiracist," and they provided set criteria for how a respondent might place a president in each. Any comprehensive evaluation of the greatness of a president requires a consideration of his racial sensitivity. After all, this subject has existed as a subliminal discussion between the dominant and subordinate communities in the United States for its entire history. More recently, it has emerged as an issue of national interest among those who are re-examining the slave-holding past of highly regarded presidents like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. But how do we assess the greatness of a complex character like Jefferson, who could imply that he opposed slavery, yet could simultaneously have a public affair with one of his female slaves, Sally Hemming? Likewise, how does the consideration of racial sensitivity reflect on Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon who, while supporting aspects of civil rights meant to empower blacks, at the same time referred privately to blacks with derogatory racial expressions that devalue the black personality? This tension is illustrated when considering the more contemporary tenure of Ronald Reagan, who, along with George Herbert Walker Bush, Dwight Eisenhower and Gerald Ford, is categorized in the Walton and Smith survey as "Racially Ambivalent" (a president whose actions range from Antiracist to Race Neutral). This highly objective rendering of black attitudes belies the view of the leadership of the NAACP, for example, that Ronald Reagan was a "racist" president. These critics point to his style of governance which excluded blacks from access to the White House, as well as Reagan's policies which devalued the civil rights legacy and withdrew federal funding from support of black community development. For these reasons it is unlikely that Ronald Reagan would be viewed as great by most blacks. Yet in a comprehensive assessment of presidential governance like Schlesinger's, the rating of "Average" for Reagan seems correct. In arriving at their categorization the Schlesinger respondents probably took into consideration the racial aspect of Reagan's tenure. Another assessment of Reagan's presidential performance by //Policy Review//, a conservative journal, resulted in a much higher rating for Reagan, and probably did not consider his record on race and civil rights issues. We now measure the greatness of presidents in light of how they performed in a momentary crisis, by the scope of their agenda, and by their personal character and comportment. These are valid and important measures. But in the future we will need to test presidents by how they responded to an evolving, major, domestic fact of 21st Century America -- the substantial changes in the social demography of the nation. Future presidents must be judged by how they deal with this dramatic shift, a shift that is inexorable and which we might call the ongoing crisis of inclusion in America. Presidential greatness should depend upon the adroitness of style and the depth of principle that contributes to the inclusion and integration of various groups within the life of the whole society. How, in this equalitarian context, will a president balance and contribute to a new majoritarian consensus? If we take into account how presidents forge and shape issues which represent the new cultural voices emerging into prominence, and if we gauge whether our leaders hear these voices much deeper into the consciousness of American politics, we will have a much more meaningful assessment of greatness.

This article first appeared on TomPaine.com two years ago.