The Carter Benchmark

What ranking would you give the post-WWII presidents?

Elsewhere on this site, a discussion arose as to whether Carter was a worse president than George W. Many commentators prone to hyperbolic rankings may be inclined to say our current President is the worst ever, and if you Google "worst president" you will find many links attesting to this. There were several truly appalling 19th century Presidents, however, who are not uppermost in our minds, and so such opinions may not have an appropriate historical weighting. Opinions on such a subjective matter are bound to be divided, but each of us is entitled to make his own judgment.

It would be nice if we could find some benchmark from which we could derive relative rankings that suit our own bias and prejudices. We have ample evidence from their performance during their term in office to rank them, but it is a confusing picture encompassing all areas of policy and administration. What if there was a way of ranking them more simply? A benchmarking test is needed that could be applied as a mental exercise to assist in ranking our own subjective assessments.

A possible solution is to approach the past presidents as if they were a candidates for the presidency. Along these lines, I looked for a substantial assessment of character, maturity and leadership potential actually applied to at least one future presidential candidate by a respected body. One such test that comes to mind is that Carter was once assessed by the U.S. Navy as being suitable for the command of a nuclear submarine. Perhaps such a command could serve as a small scale model for the Presidency in that it carries an awesome responsibility for weapons of mass destruction - and requires the kind of leadership that can maintain crew morale in a pressured environment.

In order to apply this theory, which I'll call the "Carter benchmark," let's consider hypothetical recommendations (as to their potential for promotion to command level) that might have been made of the post war presidents if (at their prime) they had applied to join the nuclear submarine officer program. Here goes!

• Ike: a fine officer with potential for high command - highly recommended
• JFK: a courageous and resourceful officer but has playboy tendencies and traces of a spoiled rich-kid upbringing – recommended (with a caution to monitor carefully)
• LBJ: abrasive manner, but sound judgment and strong sense of justice – recommended
• Nixon: intelligent, educated and worldly, but has a devious nature and lacks basic integrity – not recommended
• Ford: Tends to be a follower rather than a leader - not recommended
• Carter: Demonstrated ability - recommended
• Reagan: often gives the impression he is acting, outwardly patriotic and heroic but lacks stamina and is shallow – marginal, but not recommended
• Bush senior: demonstrated performance in combat, mature, competent administrator – recommended
• Clinton: worldly wise, diplomatic, well-educated, competent administrator, lacks self discipline – recommended (with a caution to monitor carefully)
• Bush junior: repeated failures, does not learn from them, shallow, ignorant, poor manager of money, easily manipulated – not recommended

Each of us will make his own assessment against the Carter Benchmark and no doubt will arrive at widely different rankings. The exercise serves only to get our own thoughts in order. My rankings are still highly subjective and biased by the unreliable images of these men created in the media, and by my own, perhaps naive, expectations for this highest office. Some actually did better than predicted by the Carter Benchmark, and some worse. Nevertheless, I feel the method has helped me to place them where I feel they should be (from best to worst):

• Republicans: Ike, Bush senior, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, Bush junior
• Democrats: LBJ, Clinton, JFK, Carter
• Combined: Ike, LBJ, Clinton, JFK, Bush senior, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Bush junior

Now we have two more candidates to consider. How would you apply the Carter Benchmark to them? Also, there might be better benchmarks. Any ideas?

Star This to Save in Your Profile