You've probably seen those "greatest presidents ranked" lists floating around. I used to skim through them without thinking much – until my history professor made us debate why FDR consistently topped these rankings while Reagan kept shifting spots. That got me curious about how these rankings actually work. Turns out, it's not just some historians voting over coffee. There's real methodology behind it, and understanding that changes how you see presidential legacies.
How Historians Create Those Greatest Presidents Lists
Let's cut through the noise first. Rankings aren't pulled out of thin air. Major surveys like the C-SPAN Historians Survey or Siena College Research Institute poll hundreds of experts using strict criteria. They look at ten key areas:
Public persuasion: How well did they communicate vision?
Crisis leadership: Handling wars, depressions, disasters
Economic management: Jobs, inflation, growth strategies
Moral authority: Personal integrity and ethical leadership
International relations: Diplomacy and foreign policy wins
Administrative skills: Actually running the government
Relations with Congress: Getting legislation passed
Vision/agenda setting: Defining national direction
Pursued equal justice: Civil rights advancements
Performance context: Achievements relative to their era's challenges
See, I used to think these greatest presidents ranked lists were mostly about wartime leadership. But after digging into the data, economic stewardship carries nearly equal weight. That explains why Calvin Coolidge rarely cracks top 10 lists despite a booming economy – his laissez-faire approach scored low on "vision."
Latest Presidential Rankings Compared
Here's where things stand based on 2024 surveys from three major studies – notice how Lincoln and Washington dominate while modern presidents fluctuate:
| President | C-SPAN Ranking (2024) | Siena Ranking (2023) | APSA Scholars Rank (2022) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abraham Lincoln | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| George Washington | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Franklin D. Roosevelt | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Theodore Roosevelt | 4 | 6 | 4 |
| Dwight Eisenhower | 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Harry Truman | 6 | 9 | 6 |
| Thomas Jefferson | 7 | 4 | 5 |
| John F. Kennedy | 8 | 11 | 14 |
| Ronald Reagan | 9 | 17 | 16 |
| Barack Obama | 10 | 10 | 12 |
Interesting how Reagan's position varies wildly, right? Siena ranks him 17th while C-SPAN puts him top 10. Why the gap? Siena weighs moral authority heavier – Iran-Contra still drags him down. C-SPAN emphasizes vision, where his conservative revolution scores big. Shows how ranking methodologies shape outcomes.
Breaking Down Top Presidents: Why They Dominate Rankings
Abraham Lincoln's Enduring Legacy
Lincoln tops every modern survey. Beyond preserving the Union and emancipating slaves, his leadership blueprint still resonates. He transformed the presidency's power during crisis – suspending habeas corpus wasn't popular but arguably necessary. His Gettysburg Address reframed America's purpose in 272 words. What historians really admire? His political flexibility. He changed positions when facts demanded it (see: evolving emancipation strategy).
But let's be real – some critics argue he centralized too much power. The whole habeas corpus thing? Legal scholars still debate its constitutionality. And his Reconstruction plans were vague – we'll never know how he'd have handled postwar divisions.
FDR: The Crisis Manager Blueprint
Four terms. Two existential crises. Master communicator. FDR's New Deal fundamentally reinvented government's economic role. His fireside chats connected with desperate citizens like nothing before. Historians credit his experimental approach – if one program failed, he launched another. The Social Security Act alone impacts every working American today.
But here's what ranking surveys reveal: His wartime leadership often eclipses economic achievements. The C-SPAN survey ranks him #1 in crisis leadership but only #4 in economic management. Fair? Maybe not – GDP grew 10% annually during most of his tenure despite Depression conditions.
The Washington Foundation
First president. Set every precedent. Voluntarily stepped down after two terms – unheard of in the 1790s. His Farewell Address warned against political parties and foreign entanglements. Ranking experts consistently emphasize his restraint with power. Unlike later leaders, he had no model to follow. Every decision defined the office. Constitutional scholars note his delicate balance: assertive enough to establish authority but deferential to Congress on legislation.
Controversies in Presidential Rankings
Why Andrew Jackson Keeps Falling
In early 20th century rankings, Jackson often made top 5. Today? He averages 22nd across major surveys. That's the steepest decline of any president. The reason's simple: modern criteria heavily weight moral authority and equal justice. The Trail of Tears – his forced removal of Native Americans causing thousands of deaths – tanks his scores. Even his democratic achievements (expanding voting rights) can't offset that.
I visited the Hermitage last year. Tour guides spend more time explaining his slave ownership than military victories. Perspectives change.
The Reagan Paradox
No modern president splits historians like Reagan. Free-market economists praise his tax cuts and deregulation (unemployment dropped from 7.5% to 5.4% during his terms). Foreign policy experts credit his role in ending the Cold War. But social historians hammer him on AIDS crisis neglect and Iran-Contra. Here's the data breakdown:
| Evaluation Criteria | Reagan's Strengths | Reagan's Weaknesses |
|---|---|---|
| Economic Management | Reduced inflation from 13.5% to 4.1% | National debt tripled to $2.6 trillion |
| Moral Authority | Restored confidence in presidency | Iran-Contra scandal violated laws |
| Equal Justice | Appointed first female SCOTUS justice | Ignored AIDS epidemic for years |
| Vision/Agenda | "Reagan Revolution" shifted politics | "Trickle-down economics" criticized |
His ranking fluctuates because surveys weight these factors differently. Siena's heavy emphasis on integrity drops him to 17th. C-SPAN's focus on vision lifts him to 9th. When evaluating presidents ranked lists, always check the methodology.
Modern Presidents: Where They Stand
Recent leaders face "recency bias" – historians need distance to judge legacies. But current trends show:
Obama (Ranked 10th-12th): Strong on moral authority (Obamacare, LGBT rights) but criticized for foreign policy caution. Historians debate whether he could've achieved more with congressional opposition.
George W. Bush (Ranked 29th-33rd): Iraq War dominates his legacy despite Medicare Part D and AIDS relief. Most surveys place him near bottom quartile.
Trump (Unranked pending time/distance): Academic surveys avoid ranking sitting/recent presidents. Early scholarly works cite impeachment and Jan 6th as major liability areas.
Personally, I think Clinton's ranking (usually 12th-15th) deserves scrutiny. His economic management looks brilliant – balanced budget, 22 million jobs created. But the Lewinsky scandal and Glass-Steagall repeal seem bigger liabilities today than in 2000s rankings. Future surveys might drop him.
Presidents Who Defy Rankings
Some leaders break the ranking mold entirely:
James K. Polk: The Achievement Paradox
He promised four things: Annex Texas, settle Oregon boundary, lower tariffs, establish independent treasury. Did all four in one term then retired. Massive territorial expansion. Yet he averages just 12th in rankings. Why? Personality matters. He was joyless, micromanaged everything, and died three months post-presidency. Surveys reward charisma and inspirational leadership – things Polk lacked.
Ulysses S. Grant: The Rehabilitation
20 years ago, Grant ranked near bottom. Today? He's climbed to top 20. Modern scholarship highlights his aggressive Reconstruction efforts and fight against the KKK. His administration's corruption scandals remain problematic, but historians now contextualize them within widespread Gilded Age graft.
Shows how greatest presidents rankings evolve as new research emerges.
Presidential Rankings FAQ
Why do Lincoln and Washington always top greatest presidents ranked lists?
Both navigated existential crises while establishing foundational precedents. Lincoln preserved the Union and ended slavery; Washington defined peaceful power transfer and constitutional restraint.
Which president improved most in rankings?
Dwight Eisenhower soared from 22nd in 1962 Schlesinger poll to consistent top 10 today. Historians reappraised his civil rights record and Cold War steadiness.
Do partisan politics influence rankings?
Studies show minimal bias. The 2024 C-SPAN survey included equal conservative/liberal historians. Rankings rarely shift drastically between administrations.
How soon after leaving office can presidents be ranked?
Most scholars wait 15-20 years for perspective. Bush Jr. first appeared in 2018 surveys; Obama in 2022.
Why are some presidents consistently ranked poorly?
James Buchanan (last in nearly every ranking) failed spectacularly to prevent secession. Warren Harding's corruption scandals define his legacy.
Do economic policies or wars impact rankings more?
Neither dominates. Lincoln (Civil War) and FDR (WWII) rank high, but so do Washington (peace) and Jefferson (Louisiana Purchase). Context matters most.
Using Rankings Beyond Trivia
Great presidents ranked lists aren't just academic exercises. They help us:
Evaluate leadership qualities that withstand historical scrutiny
Understand how policy decisions resonate across generations
Spot patterns in crisis management successes/failures
Contextualize current political debates through historical lens
After researching this, I reconsidered how I judge modern politicians. Would their decisions look courageous or reckless in 50 years? That Lincoln-FDR-Washington tier succeeded by balancing principle with pragmatism – something worth remembering next election cycle.
What surprises you most about presidential rankings? I still can't get over Polk's underrated legacy despite achieving every campaign promise. Guess charisma really does count.
Comment