Ranking The Presidents

In honor of President's Day, I thought I would rank the country's Presidents. Not all of them, but the ones we have had in my lifetime. I was born in 1966, and this country has had nine Presidents in that time.

Now, in all fairness I should explain my biases so that you can see why I ranked the Presidents as I did. I vote for Presidential candidates based on economic policies such as tax policy, fiscal policy, trade policy and how that shapes the candidates view of the government's role in our lives. I also take into account leadership qualities, and the overall sense of confidence the candidate inspires. My own biases are towards free markets and free trade, lower taxes, and reasonable regulation which keeps the government from being overly intrusive in our daily lives. I really pay very little attention to more social issues such as the environment, abortion, gay marriage, etc.. I realize that some people consider social issues to be more important, but they are secondary considerations for me.

So, without further delay, here is my list, from worst to first:

9. Barack Obama

8. George W. Bush, Jr.

7. Richard Nixon

6. Gerald Ford

5. Jimmy Carter

4. George H W Bush, Sr.

3. Lyndon Johnson

2. Bill Clinton

1. Ronald Reagan

As I look at this list, the only ones I would truly label as "good" or better are Reagan and Clinton. I give Reagan the nod because his tax policies, I believe, had a lot to do with the economic expansion that lasted through the Clinton years, too. Plus, Clinton did push for changes to the Community Reinvestment Act that mandated higher levels of subprime home lending by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Reagan truly changed the paradigm of political discourse in this country. He told us that the government wasn't the solution to the problem, but that government was the problem. For that time, he was right. He got two major tax cut bills passed through a Democratic House and Republican Senate. He stared down the Soviet Union, yet also struck a genuine friendship with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. The two signed the only treaty that actually pledged to reduce nuclear weapons. Most of all, his economic policies led to a 92 month economic recovery and expansion that created 19 million jobs. Prior to becoming President, Mr. Reagan was President of the Screen Actors Guild union and Governor of California.



Bill Clinton also presided over a large economic expansion, led by the technology and financial sectors. The economy created 23 million new jobs during his time in office. Whereas President Reagan sought to unleash the private sector, President Clinton was more about public/private partnerships to create jobs. During President Clinton's time in office, the federal budget was balanced, and upon leaving office, the federal budget was actually in surplus thanks to economic growth and limited growth in government spending. Clinton was also surrounded by the smartest economic team of our time, with Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin being perhaps the best of all time in that position. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan could do no wrong during this time. Prior to becoming President, Mr. Clinton was the Attorney General in Arkansas and Governor of Arkansas.

Among the other Presidents, Lyndon Johnson gets high marks for signing landmark Civil Rights legislation into law in 1964. Johnson readily conceded that he was handing the South to Republicans for a generation, but still did the right thing. However, his handling of the Vietnam War leaves plenty of room for heavy criticism. To be fair, Johnson was following US policy of containment, so there was no perceived need to "win" the war. Without any clear objective, besides killing the enemy, it was inevitable that US would not win the war, and ultimately left South Vietnam at the mercy of the communist forces from North Vietnam. Prior to becoming President, Mr. Johnson was Senate Majority Leader, and Vice President of the United States.

George H W Bush deserves high marks for prosecuting Operation Desert Storm, and for creating the RTC to handle the savings and loan crisis. The way that Bush handled the first Iraq War was far different than the way his son handled the second Iraq War. Bush, Sr. garnered worldwide support for the operation, he had a clear mission and a clear exit strategy. I also mention the RTC because Bush, Sr. was hammered by conservatives for this move, but the RTC did clean up the mess and helped save the banking system. This move is a highly under-appreciated move that really helped the economy grow in the 1990's. But Bush did not tend to economic policy as the economy sank into a recession. He also signed a disastrous tax hike into law just as the economy was entering a recession. Really a sad ending to a long and distinguished public service career that included stints as a member of the US House of Representatives, Ambassador to China, Ambassador to the United Nations, and Vice President.

Jimmy Carter gets high marks for brokering a peace agreement between Egypt and Israel, and for appointing Paul Volcker to be chairman of the Federal Reserve. However, Carter's term as President was marred by high inflation, led by high energy prices, and the Iranian hostage crisis. Carter appeared weak when confronted with these crises. He responded to high energy prices with more regulation and a speech in which he stated that a "general malaise" had fallen over the land. With the Iranian hostage crisis, Carter deserves credit for getting all the hostages home alive, but his lack of leadership led to an embarrassing crisis for the United States and let the crisis escalate to what it did finally become. Prior to becoming President, Mr. Carter ran his family's peanut farm and was Governor of Georgia.

Gerald Ford actually gets an incomplete with a term that lasted about 2 1/2 years. His one notable act was pardoning Richard Nixon and as he put it, "ending our long national nightmare." Richard Nixon deserves credit for achieving detente with the Soviets, going to China and opening the way for diplomatic relations, and for getting us peacefully out of Vietnam (if there was any way to get out peacefully). However, his main character flaw (paranoia), led to the largest abuse of power in this nation's history. A bungled break-in at the Watergate complex was ultimately found to be a cover-up that went all the way to the White House. It came to be defined by Sen. Howard Baker's question, "What did the President know and when did he know it?". In addition, Nixon's economic policies were a diaster that ultimately led to the high inflation that we saw in the late 70's. In addition, his Administration saw the creation of the EPA, and OSHA, which greatly expanded the government's role in our daily lives. Prior to becoming President, Mr. Nixon was a practicing attorney, US Senator, and Vice President of the United States.

On Sept 11, 2001, the United States enjoyed the goodwill of the entire civilized world. George W Bush blew through all of it. He responded to the terrorist attacks by fighting an unnecessary war in Iraq, with very little worldwide support. He deserves credit for recognizing that we were in a war. But he failed miserably to get the support he needed to fight terrorism. The economy also performed weakly as his 2001 tax cut produced very little, if any, additional economic activity. His "tax rebates" were clearly a gimmick and people saw it as such. Prior to becoming President, Mr. Bush was the CEO of an oil company in Texas, the head of the Texas Rangers baseball team and the governor of Texas.

Barack Obama was saddled with worst economy in several generations when he came into office. Strangely enough, he barely addressed economic concerns, pushing for a poorly designed stimulus bill, then focusing on other issues. He came into office as the least qualified of all the previous people mentioned in this list, and it shows. He shows very little command of basic economics, does not appear to share the concerns of his citizens, and shows little, if any, leadership ability. He is surrounded by a weak economic team (Geitner is the worst Treasury Sec I have seen), which hasn't helped anything. Hence, unemployment stayed above 9% for 28 months in a 30 month stretch, while his focus was on social issues, and "fairness", neither of which was creating any jobs. The economy is showing signs of coming back, which may help him win re-election.

So there is my list and my reasoning. Feel free to agree or disagree as you wish, just be respectful about it.

Give Me Old Fashioned Rivalries

Kansas vs. Missouri. I have loved this rivalry and tonight's game promises to be a good one, with #8 Kansas visiting #4 Missouri. I was born and raised in a family of Jayhawks, so I will be rooting for Kansas. Sadly, this will be the last time the two teams play in Columbia, with Missouri jumping to the Southeastern Conference. To put it mildly, conference realignment sucks. The past few months have seen a lot of big names jump conferences, with Pitt and Syracuse going to the ACC, Texas A&M and Missouri going to the SEC, and West Virginia and TCU going to the Big 12.

The conference realignment has also seen the destruction of three historic rivalries: Texas-Texas A&M, Kansas-Missouri, Pitt-West Virginia. My question is this: how does that make college athletics better? It doesn't. It will make college athletics worse. Much worse, I'm afraid. One of the great things about college athletics are the long rivalries, with all the fan hostility, the pranks, one-upmanship of it all. Within college athletics, almost all the great rivalries fall within the confines of conference match ups. Michigan-Ohio State, Auburn-Alabama, Duke-North Carolina are among the biggest, but many rivalries are more regional or local in nature. It could be Arizona-Arizona State, Mississippi-Mississippi State, or Kansas-Kansas State. Each of these rivalries are extra special because of the added meaning of a conference game. While I do appreciate Missouri's desire to continue playing Kansas, I believe Kansas did the right thing in saying no. This kind of a rivalry game belongs within the confines of a conference match up. A non-conference basketball game in December would never carry the same significance as tonight's game. And that will be missed.

Ten years from now, Kansas and Missouri will be tuned out from each other. So will Texas-Texas A&M. This is so sad. There will be no rivalry, the students will have no appreciation for what once was. Kansas will still have K-State, Texas will still have Oklahoma. Texas A&M does have a long history with Arkansas, and some history with LSU. But that's what will replace its rivalry with Texas? Not even close. And what about Missouri? There is nothing in the SEC that will even remotely begin to replace their rivalry with Kansas. It will be as if a piece of each school's heart has been cut out. No one wins in this scenario.

So I will savor tonight's game. Next year college athletics will feel much emptier without the big rivalry games. Conference realignment sucks, and it will not make college sports better. College athletics will have lost a bit of its soul, and lost a bit of what truly makes it special and so fun to watch. A few more moves like this and college sports will have all the uniqueness of a Pacers-Nuggets game (or was that Suns vs. Bobcats?).

P.S. Rock Chalk Jayhawk, KU!