Evaluating the Presidents

Rasmussen's Daily Presidential Tracking Poll indicates today that 31% of the nation's voters strongly approve of President Obama's performance as president while 40% strongly disapprove. This raises the question of what makes for a good president. In today's bitterly divided and partisan climate, is it a matter of one's political affiliation completely determining one's view of the matter as if it were just one big sporting event? Blue nation or Red nation like Yankees nation or Red Sox nation? Or are there more concrete and objective criteria by which we should judge the performance of an American Commander-in-Chief?

There are four more modern presidents which routinely receive high marks among presidential historians and other scholars. These are Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan. For example, a 2005 Wall Street Journal poll that attempted to balance the opinions of liberals and conservatives ranked Theodore Roosevelt fifth, Woodrow Wilson eleventh, Franklin Roosevelt third, and Ronald Reagan sixth. A 2009 CSPAN poll of presidential historians and "other presidential observers" ranked Theodore Roosevelt fourth, Woodrow Wilson ninth, Franklin Roosevelt third, and Ronald Reagan tenth.

The CSPAN poll used specific criteria including public persuasion, crisis leadership, economic management, moral authority, international relations, administrative skills, relations with Congress, vision/setting an agenda, pursued equal justice for all, and performance within context of the times. While these may seem reasonable, are they really? For example, what has public persuasion really to do with being president? The president is not a litigation attorney or a snake oil salesman (or ought not be one). Crisis leadership? Why should a president who does not face major crises due to prudent leadership be penalized while a president who recklessly got the republic into a crisis and subsequently dealt with that crisis effectively is rewarded? Economic management? Under what constitution does the president manage the economy? Certainly not under the United States Constitution. Certainly not in a free market economy. Perhaps if we were ranking Soviet premiers, that would be more appropriate. Moral authority? Since when did the president become the Pope? While it would be nice to have a president who is saintly, should one care, for example, if one's auto mechanic or dentist has "moral authority" as long as they get the job done well? Administrative skills? The president is not a paper pusher in some bureaucracy. International relations? Wouldn't that make a president who gets on well with the various and sundry totalitarian dictators of the world a better president than one who opposes them? Relations with Congress? Isn't that mainly an accident of history? A president who happens to be in office during a time when his party is in power in Congress would likely do much better on that measure than one who happens to be in office at a time when his party is in the minority in Congress. Also, should a president have good relations with Congress if it is attempting to pass unconstitutional and/or imprudent legislation? The president needs to be a well reasoned check and balance on the Congress and not its B.F.F. Vision/setting an agenda? That criterion seems so hopelessly vague. It would likely amount to evaluating it on the basis of taste. If one is a conservative, he or she would likely view a conservative agenda in a positive manner, and if one is a liberal, he or she would likely view a liberal agenda in a positive manner. Pursuing equal justice for all, while admirable, also seems hopelessly vague. Performance within context of the times is something that one would need to bear in mind, certainly, but it smacks of a kind of relativism that seems anything but helpful.

So, then what criteria should be employed in evaluating the performance of a president? A good place to start would be by determining what the job actually requires. One cannot very well evaluate the plumber working on his or her home by examining the work done on the drywall. A useful starting point is the oath of office that a president takes upon being inaugurated. The oath of office that a president takes is: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." This traditional language indicates that we should look to the Constitution. This makes perfect sense, as the job description, what one holding the office can and cannot do, is explained within the document. The Constitution can be viewed as akin to a contract with the American people. Just as we would begin evaluating our hypothetical plumber friend by examining the contract that describes his or her services, we should begin here by examining the Constitution, a "contract" which describes the president's "services" to "We the People."

Article II (and Section 7 of Article I) of the Constitution describes the powers of the president. The constitutional powers of the president are very limited. Far more limited than anyone today would likely believe. The President of the United States is "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into actual service." The president also has the power "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senate present concur." Similarly, the president has the power "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law." The president also has the power to sign into law bills passed by the Congress or to veto them under Article I, Section 7. The president may also make recess appointments, grant pardons and reprieves for federal offenses, and must give a State of the Union address to Congress "from time to time." Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the president must "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." These are the only powers granted to the president by the Constitution.

It is from these enumerated powers that criteria for evaluating presidential performance must be developed. Based upon these, the most reasonable criteria are foreign affairs, check and balance on the legislature, Supreme Court nominations, and constitutional restraint. The foreign affairs category captures the president's performance as Commander in Chief of the armed forces as well as his performance as head of state (operationalizing his treaty power and other less formal interactions with foreign heads of states and nations). It does not skew in favor of zealous warrior presidents as it examines the wider context, placing as much emphasis as avoiding unnecessary wars and showing military restraint when appropriate as it does on successfully waging war. The check and balance on the legislature category views how effectively the president supported constitutional legislation by Congress by signing it and how effectively a president opposed unconstitutional legislation by vetoing it. While the president has a good deal of appointment power, most of the appointments that the president makes involve officers who are subordinate to him within the executive branch, and hence are not appropriately analyzed separately from the performance of the particular president. However, Supreme Court nominees typically create a constitutional legacy which can outlive a given president by years if not decades. For example, although Ronald Reagan left office twenty-two years ago, two of his four nominees, Kennedy and Scalia, continue to be dominant forces on the Supreme Court. Therefore, a president's care in choosing Supreme Court nominees who respect the Constitution is extremely important. Finally, a president's constitutional restraint, which is to say how well the president stays within the confines of the enumerated executive powers of the Constitution, is a simplified yet useful determination of how well that president takes care that laws are faithfully executed. In upcoming posts, employing these criteria, the aforementioned well regarded presidents -- Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan -- shall be evaluated. As a matter of convenience, traditional academic grades will be assigned to each of these four presidents on each of the four criteria.