(This is part 3 of my ongoing series where I rate the presidents on multiple criteria. Here is the link to part 1, and here is the link to part 2.)
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
It is difficult not to give Franklin Delano Roosevelt credit for his tremendous work during World War II. He maintained an alliance between the United States, Britain, and the Soviet Union. While it was impressive, there are two things to consider: Nazi Germany was being imperialistic, which made maintaining an alliance against them much easier ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend"); secondly, there is significant evidence that FDR secretly pushed the Japanese behind the scenes to attack the United States. Too much of it seems like FDR was trying to lead us into war. C-SPAN's survey may look at that as deft international relations, but isn't peace the ultimate goal of international relations?
While C-SPAN gave FDR the top slot, I have to hand it to Thomas Jefferson. The Louisiana Purchase nearly doubled the size of the United States, without firing a single gun. Adding in the cancellation of America's debt to France, we paid about $7 million for 828,000 square miles of land. When you take that much land without a war, THAT is some serious negotiating skill.
On the other hand, the worst president in my view was Woodrow Wilson. By allowing France to have their way with Germany during the Treaty of Versailles negotiations, he set the stage for World War II. And all he got to show for it was the League of Nations, which eventually failed. Even if you give him credit for the eventual formation of the United Nations, can we honestly say that was worth fighting World War II? This doesn't even touch on how Wilson got us involved in World War I unnecessarily, in my opinion. Wilson's successes in international relations were failures for the world and the United States, in the long run view. That is what history should judge, is it not?
Astoundingly, the C-SPAN survey ranked Wilson at 12th place. Instead, they selected James Buchanan as the worst president. Unless you count the Utah War as a matter of international relations, or the start of the Civil War, and I consider both as domestic issues, nothing of significance happened internationally during Buchanan's administration.
ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS
I have to give my vote to George Washington as the best president for administrative skills. He had a rougher administrative issue than most presidents, since he was the first. However, he managed to hold together the bickering members of the first administration by remaining above their quarrels, yet still managed to guide them in a positive direction. He is a role model in administrative leadership during new ventures.
However, the C-SPAN survey only ranked Washington second, instead choosing Abraham Lincoln as the best. There is one huge problem with that: The C-SPAN survey also chose Andrew Johnson as the worst administrative skills president. If Lincoln was so great, then how do you defend his appointment of Edwin Stanton as Secretary of War? It was Stanton's insubordination which eventually led to Johnson's impeachment (after Johnson tried to replace Stanton). One can argue that Johnson should have done more to keep Stanton in line, but Johnson's options were limited by the Tenure of Office Act (which was used as the basis for Johnson's impeachment). This meant Johnson's impeachment can be directly blamed on Lincoln for appointing Stanton in the first place. Johnson was put in a nearly impossible administrative situation, with a rogue employee whom he couldn't fire.
However, Warren Harding doesn't have that excuse. He appointed too many friends to high posts, and they subsequently betrayed him with scandals. When he died, he was one of the most popular presidents ever. And then all the scandals of his administration came out, and revealed his true flaw. This is why Harding was the worst president for administrative skills.
(to be continued)
No comments:
Post a Comment