How Would You Rank the Greatest Presidents?

In a new book, political junkie Robert W. Merry shares his three-part test

  • Smithsonian.com, August 13, 2012, Subscribe
 
$Alt
(Library of Congress)

$Header


In an interview in January 2010, President Obama told Diane Sawyer of ABC News, “I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.”

The comment didn’t really jibe well with Robert W. Merry, an acclaimed biographer of James Polk, who served as president from 1845 to 1849. Polk is ranked as a “near great” president in polls by scholars, but he is an exception. “History has not smiled upon one-term presidents,” wrote Merry in an editorial in the New York Times. “The typical one-term president generally falls into the ‘average’ category, occasionally the ‘above average.’ ”

In his new book, Where They Stand, Merry opens up the rating game beyond historians, to include what voters and contemporaries said in their own times. The editor of the National Interest, a foreign policy publication, argues that while historians’ views are important, presidential greatness is best seen through the eyes of voters of the president’s time. The greatest of the “greats,” in other words, have the election records to show it. They earned the trust of Americans in their first terms, won second terms and, in some cases, paved the way for their party to maintain control of the White House for the next four years.

Historians and others take joy in ranking the presidents, and debating these ranks. To you, what’s the fun in this?
It is the same fun that we have in trying to determine who is the greatest first baseman of all time. Most people would say Lou Gehrig, but there is plenty of room for debate. Who is the greatest American singer of the postwar period? But the presidents really have the national destiny in their hands. It is a much more significant pursuit than these others, which are more in the realm of trivia. Who was great? Who wasn’t so great? And, why were they great? Ranking presidents is a way we bring order to our thinking about our history.

What factors, do you think, need to be considered when assessing presidential greatness?
Greatness is as greatness does. It is really a question of what a president has accomplished with the country. Reagan’s question, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” is very apt. Put another way, is the country better off? How is the country different? Are those differences good or are they not so good?

The great presidents all did something that changed the political landscape of America and set the country on a new course. That’s not easy to do. That is really the key to presidential greatness.

In your book, your big claim is that we should listen to the electorate at the time of the president’s term, and not just historians. Why do you put such emphasis on the voters?
Presidential politics is like retailing. The customer is always right. In our system, we put faith in the voters, because that is at the bedrock of how we think we should order our affairs politically. If you don’t believe that, then it is kind of hard to believe very strongly in American democracy.

The whole idea is that the voters emerge with a collective judgment, maybe even occasionally a collective wisdom. I happen to buy that. Therefore, I felt that the polls of historians were significant. I didn’t debunk them or toss them aside. But I thought they were incomplete, because they didn’t always take into account what the voters were saying, thinking or doing with regard to their presidents contemporaneously. I wanted to sort of crank that into the discussion.


In an interview in January 2010, President Obama told Diane Sawyer of ABC News, “I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.”

The comment didn’t really jibe well with Robert W. Merry, an acclaimed biographer of James Polk, who served as president from 1845 to 1849. Polk is ranked as a “near great” president in polls by scholars, but he is an exception. “History has not smiled upon one-term presidents,” wrote Merry in an editorial in the New York Times. “The typical one-term president generally falls into the ‘average’ category, occasionally the ‘above average.’ ”

In his new book, Where They Stand, Merry opens up the rating game beyond historians, to include what voters and contemporaries said in their own times. The editor of the National Interest, a foreign policy publication, argues that while historians’ views are important, presidential greatness is best seen through the eyes of voters of the president’s time. The greatest of the “greats,” in other words, have the election records to show it. They earned the trust of Americans in their first terms, won second terms and, in some cases, paved the way for their party to maintain control of the White House for the next four years.

Historians and others take joy in ranking the presidents, and debating these ranks. To you, what’s the fun in this?
It is the same fun that we have in trying to determine who is the greatest first baseman of all time. Most people would say Lou Gehrig, but there is plenty of room for debate. Who is the greatest American singer of the postwar period? But the presidents really have the national destiny in their hands. It is a much more significant pursuit than these others, which are more in the realm of trivia. Who was great? Who wasn’t so great? And, why were they great? Ranking presidents is a way we bring order to our thinking about our history.

What factors, do you think, need to be considered when assessing presidential greatness?
Greatness is as greatness does. It is really a question of what a president has accomplished with the country. Reagan’s question, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” is very apt. Put another way, is the country better off? How is the country different? Are those differences good or are they not so good?

The great presidents all did something that changed the political landscape of America and set the country on a new course. That’s not easy to do. That is really the key to presidential greatness.

In your book, your big claim is that we should listen to the electorate at the time of the president’s term, and not just historians. Why do you put such emphasis on the voters?
Presidential politics is like retailing. The customer is always right. In our system, we put faith in the voters, because that is at the bedrock of how we think we should order our affairs politically. If you don’t believe that, then it is kind of hard to believe very strongly in American democracy.

The whole idea is that the voters emerge with a collective judgment, maybe even occasionally a collective wisdom. I happen to buy that. Therefore, I felt that the polls of historians were significant. I didn’t debunk them or toss them aside. But I thought they were incomplete, because they didn’t always take into account what the voters were saying, thinking or doing with regard to their presidents contemporaneously. I wanted to sort of crank that into the discussion.

There are six presidents that you refer to as “Leaders of Destiny.” What makes a president deserving of this title?
The six, in order, are Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt. I happen to believe that Reagan will get into that circle, but right now, the polls of historians don’t quite have him there, although his standing is rising rather dramatically.

The six leaders of destiny pass a three-part test. They are consistently hailed among the greats or near greats by the historians. They are two-term presidents succeeded by their own party, meaning that the voters liked them both times that they served. And then, as I described earlier, they transformed the political landscape of the country and set it on a new course.

What were the major traits that these presidents shared? They all understood the nature of their time, what was really going on in the country, what the country needed, what the voters collectively were hungry for. There are a lot of presidents who don’t understand their time; they think they do, but they don’t. You have to have a vision. All of these leaders of destiny were elected at a time when the country needed tremendous leadership, and these presidents are the ones who stepped up and gave it. Then, they have political adroitness, the ability to get their hands on the levers of power in America and manipulate those levers in a way that gets the country moving affectively in the direction of that vision.

In your opinion, FDR and Ronald Reagan are the two greatest presidents of the 20th century.
The voters hailed them both at the time. What is interesting, in my view, is that Roosevelt was probably the most liberal president of the 20th century, and Reagan was probably the most conservative president of the 20th century. It indicates that the country is not particularly ideological. It is looking for the right solutions to the problems of the moment. The country is willing to turn left or to turn right.

What is the difference between good and great?
We have had a lot of good presidents. I’ll give you a good example of a good president, Bill Clinton. Clinton was elected because the country wasn’t quite satisfied with George H.W. Bush. They didn’t think he was a terrible president, but he didn’t quite lead the country in a way that made him eligible for rehire. The country gets Bill Clinton, and he tries to govern in his first two years as if his aim is to repeal Reaganism. The result was that the American people basically slapped him down very, very decisively in the midterm elections of 1994, at which point Bill Clinton did an about-face and said, “The era of big government is over.” He crafted a center left mode of governing that was very effective. He had significant economic growth. He wiped out the deficit. We didn’t have major problems overseas. There was no agitation in the streets that led to violence or anything of that nature. He gets credit for being a good president.

Once he righted his mode of government and moved the country solidly forward, he was beginning to build up some significant political capital, and he never really felt the need or desire to invest that capital into anything very bold. So, he governed effectively as a status quo president and ended eight years as a very good steward of American polity, but not a great president. To be a great president, you have to take risks and make changes.

Just as we can learn from the successes, there are lessons to be learned from the failures. What can you say about character traits that do not bode well for a successful presidency?
Scandal harms you tremendously. But I would say that the real failures are people like James Buchanan who faced a huge crisis—the debate over slavery that was descending upon America—and just simply didn’t want to deal with. He wasn’t willing to put himself out in any kind of politically risky way in order to address it. The result was it just got worse. It festered and got worse.

Occasionally, a president will make a comeback in historians’ minds. What would you say is the most reputation-altering presidential biography?
Grover Cleveland is the only president we have who actually is a two-time, one-term president. He is the only president who served two nonconsecutive terms. Each time he served four years, the voters said, “I’ve had enough. I’m going to turn away to either another person in the party or another candidate.”

Meanwhile, however, the first poll by Arthur Schlesinger Sr. in 1948 had Grover Cleveland at Number 8. That ranking came a few years after the great historian Allan Evans wrote a two volume biography of Grover Cleveland, in which he hailed him as a man of destiny and a man of character. I am sure that biography had a significant impact.

So, you describe a manner of assessing the greatest of past presidents. But, it is an election year. How do you suggest we evaluate current presidential candidates?
I don’t think the American people need a lot of instruction from me or anyone else in terms of how to make an assessment on the presidents when they come up for reelection. Presidential elections are largely referendums on the incumbent. The American people don’t pay a lot of attention to the challenger. They basically make their judgment collectively, based on the performance of the incumbent or the incumbent party. They pretty much screen out the trivia and the nonsense—a lot of the stuff that we in the political journalistic fraternity (and I’ve been a part of it for a long, long time) tend to take very seriously—and make their assessment based on sound judgments on how the president has fared, how well he has led the country and whether the country is in better shape than it was before. I am pretty confident that the American people know what they are doing.

Do you have any comment, then, on what qualities we might look for in a candidate, so that we maximize our chances of electing a leader of destiny?
One thing that we know from history is that the great presidents are never predicted as being great. They are elected in a political crucible. While supporters are convinced he is going to be great—or she; someday we will have a woman—his detractors and opponents will be absolutely convinced that he is going to be a total and utter disaster. Even after he is succeeding, they are going to say he is a disaster.

You can never really predict what a president is going to do or how effective he is going to be. Lincoln was considered a total country bumpkin from out there in rural Illinois. Oliver Wendell Holmes famously judged Franklin Roosevelt as having a first-rate temperament and a second-rate intellect. Ronald Reagan was viewed as a failed movie actor who just read his lines from 3-by-5 cards. And all three were great presidents.

What idea are you turning to next?
I wrote a history of the James Polk presidency [A Country of Vast Designs] and how the country moved west and gained all of that western and southwestern territory, Washington, Oregon, Idaho and then California to Texas. I am fascinated now by the subsequent time in our history when we busted out of our continental confines and went out into the world in the Spanish-American War. I am looking at the presidency of William McKinley and the frothy optimism of the country at that time when we decided to become something of an imperial power.

This interview series focuses on big thinkers. Without knowing whom I will interview next, only that he or she will be a big thinker in their field, what question do you have for my next interview subject?
I guess a big question I would have in terms of the state of the country is, why is the country in such a deadlock? And how in the world are we going to get out of the crisis that is a result of that deadlock?

From my last interviewee, Frank Partnoy, a University of San Diego professor and author of Wait: The Art and Science of Delay: How do you know what you know? What is it about your research and experience and background that leads you to a degree of certainty about your views? With what degree of confidence do you hold that idea?
I am not a young man. I have been around a long time. I had certainty when I was young, but I have had a lot of my certitudes shaken over the years. But, if you have enough of that, you tend to accumulate at least a few observations about the world that seem pretty solid and grounded. So, you go with them.

You have to take it on faith that you have seen enough and you know enough and you have certain principal perceptions of how things work and how events unfold and how the thesis-antithesis leads to synthesis in politics or government or history. And, so you pull it together as best you can. Ultimately, the critics will determine how successful you were.


Single Page 1 2 3 Next »

    Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.



 

Add New Comment


Name: (required)

Email: (required)

Comment:

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until Smithsonian.com has approved them. Smithsonian reserves the right not to post any comments that are unlawful, threatening, offensive, defamatory, invasive of a person's privacy, inappropriate, confidential or proprietary, political messages, product endorsements, or other content that might otherwise violate any laws or policies.

Comments (21)

1. FDR 2. Lincoln 3. Teddy Roosevelt note .... the top 3 are in a virtual tie 4. Washington 5. Jefferson 6. Wilson 7. Clinton 8. LBJ 9. JFK 10.Obama note ... 4-10 are tied for level 2 11. Truman 12. IKE 13. Reagan 14 Bush the Elder 15. Madison 16. Jackson 17. Polk 11- 17 are tied for level 3 BOTTOM 5 44. NIXON (a crook) 43. Buchanon .... allowed Civil War to take place 42. George W Bush .... incompetent 41. Harding ... another crook 40 Hoover ... the great depression

Posted by mike on December 1,2012 | 09:52 AM

What party was in the white house when America got into a (police action) war.Wars when America was not attacked?

Posted by Jose Bonaparte on November 6,2012 | 07:40 PM

DonM...war is bad but a necessity; otherwise live under an Adolf rule. How can you blame the flu on a president? Why not blame the doctors of the time? Why did Washington die? Check it out. He died in days after "catching something"...a toothache? Read. FDR--not a fan; however, like RR he lead us out of a time that was perilous. There was "no hope" in the 20's and 30's and the late 70's (after Carter messed it all up). Choose to look only beyond the end of your pencil (or keyboard) and you squander history. Everything has value. GWB too. Bill Clinton...not a fan. However, many PERSONAL accomplishments were achieved during his "reign" of terror on our country and his wife. :)

Posted by DK on October 19,2012 | 11:33 PM

Clinton, FDR, and Lincoln Great Presidents! Being in the Office when the Congress does something significant is not something the President deserves credit for. The Newly elected Republican Congress FORCED, Clinton to sign a ballanced budget. He'd passed two deficits when the Democrats ran the Congress, even though the Speaker of the House was pushing him to ballance the budget. FDR presided over NINE years of depression, what is great about that? That's incompetance. The fact the Democratic Party Platform called for social reform that the Democratic Congress passed while he was President is not something he should get credit for, it would have happened without him. Lincoln did nothing as President. As Commander and Chief he screwed up the war appoining a string of incompetants, and then reappointing incompetants he'd already fired. Slavery's end was coming, he was just there when it did. You judge a President on what THEY do. If they hadden't been elected, what would have been different? How did they form, or reform the country? If they just get their Parties Platform passed, they dont' get credit for that, any Party President would have done that. Without Nixon there would have been no Detente, no SALT, no China Initiative. Mutually Assured Destruction and the Cold War would have continued to march on. Without Eisenhower, the Interstate Highway System wouldn't have been built. Without Teddy, the Trusts wouldn't have been busted. Thus, these three Presidents can say they reformed the Country in an important way, so they get credit for those things. Great Presidents lead the Country, they don't respond to events. They reform some aspect of America and leave there stamp on the Country. 1. What did the President himself bring to the table that was not there before his arrival? 2. How much of that did he get passed? 3. What was its effect upon the country? These are the questions you answer to decide if a President is great.

Posted by BillM on September 2,2012 | 03:07 PM

I don't know the best, but I submit this list of the worst: Buchanan: Gave the slave power a running start at rebellion, which eventually cost 750,000 lives. Wilson: horribly inefficient administration that regimented people into war. Eventual cost was over 100,000 lives from WWI combat, 800,000 lives from influenza. FDR: horribly efficient at creating poverty and starvation to extend the depression, and give the Nazis and Japanese a head start at WWII. Eventual cost was 400,000 lives from combat.

Posted by DonM on August 23,2012 | 06:29 PM

I will start by stating that I am neither Democrat nor Republican. However, I find partisan commentaries and criticism of Reagan to be highly emotional and lacking in substance. He was not perfect by any means; the model for defense spending he implemented was necessary at the time, but has persisted and is one of the primary reasons we can't get control of our deficit. Reagan belongs in the top ten "Greatest Presidents" list (of which I shamelessly include presidents from FOUR different parties). My rationale (by no means a complete list): 1) Effectiveness - He reduced inflation, increased employment and cut taxes. Appointed the first female Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O'Connor. Sent US troops to Grenada to prevent the communist takeover. Forged a stronger relationship with Britain. Won the respect of Mikhail Gorbachev and effectively won the cold war, reducing the nuclear weapons in both countries. 2) Inspires Confidence and Patriotism - Totally transformed America's confidence in the economy and instilled a sense of security with his handling of the arms race and foreign relations as a whole. He was a very charismatic leader. My top ten list: Theodore Roosevelt George Washington Abraham Lincoln James Polk Harry S. Truman Andrew Jackson Ronald Reagan Franklin Delano Roosevelt Thomas Jefferson James Monroe

Posted by Patrick Parson on August 21,2012 | 01:07 PM

I know one respected historian who claims the only great presidents were George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Harry Truman. These were men who saw the correct path to take and had the courage to do so regardless of the consequences to themselves or their party. It is curious that these names do not appear in the foregoing published discussions. Being a good leader is not tantamount to being popular !!!!!!

Posted by Lawrence D Levine on August 20,2012 | 05:32 PM

Mr. Merry's list sounds like the most POPULAR presidents. But popularity is not necessarily the same thing as greatness. What was it that each president did that made him truly great? Nixon was elected to a second term, after all, so he once had a certain amount of popularity. But after the Watergate scandal ran its course, no one would list him among the greats. Lincoln accomplished something great -- keeping the United States united and starting the end of slavery -- but was not particularly popular during his presidency. It was his sudden death that helped make him so very popular. Teddy Roosevelt may well have been popular, but he also managed to set back relations between the US and most of Latin America for rather a long time. I wouldn't class him as a great. And it's far too early to tell whether Reagan or Clinton are greats. Let's give it a 100 years or so.

Posted by Diana Gainer on August 20,2012 | 09:26 AM

Lincon,FDR,Jackson,T.Roosevelt,Clinton wouldn't consider Reagen her slept during his terms while other ran rampent e.i. Ollie North & Chaney

Posted by roscoedelong on August 19,2012 | 02:12 AM

America has been fortunate to have many great presidents. Each president has shaped society with some doing more then others. I won't comment on this article's rating system, but any system that causes us to look back on this nation's great history is a good thing. While many may agree that Abraham Lincoln was one of greatest presidents, I believe J.F.K. was the greatest president in the 20th century, who was able to accomplish so much with the limited time he was in office. In short, JFK prevented a nuclear war, was insturmental in the civil rights movement and inspired a whole generation of people (Americans and global citizens). His work should be taught at all schools, as an inspiration to us all. I look forward to seeing the work of our current and future presidents. Who knows, maybe a woman will be elected to office in my lifetime...god willing.

Posted by David on August 19,2012 | 09:40 PM

I agree with you, Marilynn. The country is still paying for Reagan's legacy - and that of his spiritual heir, George W. Bush - and the country will likely continue to pay long after we're dead. Clinton deserves kudos for starting to dig us out of the mess we got into during the Reagan error.

Posted by Hank Drake on August 19,2012 | 08:05 PM

It is obvious in today's age many voters are uninformed. They have no clue why they should vote for one over the other. Lincoln is said to be one of our greatest presidents! I believe he was maybe one of the worst that ended up doing a few good things to be judged as a great president. If people knew that he counterfeited admission passes to the republican convention in Chicago and had his delegates and friends show up hours early and fill the place so Seward's delegates could not attend, resulting in Lincoln stealing the nomination. How many people think of freedom of speech is a must for Americans? Lincoln arrested over 2,000 news paper editors for writing anything bad against his administration. I feel Lincoln jeapardized our country to be taken over during the Civil war era. It is amazing that England did not try. Andrew Jackson, in my opinion could have been the worst president of all. I judge presidents more for the harm they do then lack of doing anything at all. It would be nice if some presidents of the past went on vacation all the time so they would not have done damage to the country. Now for a few of who I think were fabulous presidents. Washington, Adams, Adams the 6th, Truman, Johnson the 17th, ( the one the lies almost caused to be impeached. No other man that ran away from home and self educated himself would rise to the presidency like Johnson from Tennessee) Harry Truman, a man that had maybe one of the hardest jobs to fill and he quite possibly could be our most outstanding president ever. Reagan bringing stability to our economy. I did not like Bush #41, but since he left office I have gained great respect for him! I also liked Clinton and thought he had a huge lift for the nation but he also blundered by almost eliminating our military capabilities and our standard of morals.

Posted by David Setterland on August 19,2012 | 03:10 PM

A much overlooked president was Jimmy Carter. During his presidency he implemented severe economic austerity measures that helped us to balance our budget, which later brought great prosperity to our country. He kept us out of a major war and has proven to be one of the truly great humanitarians of our time after leaving his office. Personally I think he was a better president and person than Reagan.

Posted by ludwig ostfeld on August 19,2012 | 01:45 PM

Bill Clinton is the best president from the 20th century, besides Teddy Roosevelt, whose idea for national parks saved the pristine wilderness of our country from man's 'progress' of greed. Clinton was not only a "good" president, but the BEST one, as far as running the county was concerned. He brought us out of debt into a huge surplus, he avoided going to war, he helped thousands of people get off welfare (doled out income from federal funds was cut back tremendously) yet he supported those private entities with grants that trained the same people, enabling them to get jobs and hold them. He also convinced Congress to grant more funds to the national parks, which were in dire need at the time. I agree with Marilynn Meyer, as I believe Reagan was in the early stages of Alzheimer's disease while in office. It doesn't take a brain-trust (coining a bad pun here) to figure out that one of the great secrets of the White House during his term in office was to invent the lie to change history by calling him "The Great Communicator." Losing so much blood and being under anesthesia during the trauma of his attempted assassination started that whole process early in his first term while still in his mid-70's. Reagan was never the same afterwards; being stumped and not able to find his words in mid-sentence. He had a glazed look in his eyes many times while on camera addressing the American people. He hesitated WAY too much. His wife, Nancy was overheard on microphone cueing him with the words as she stood behind him. This was a great communicator? Next we'll be hearing that G.W. Bush was also a great communicator, and we all know where that led us to! A decade of WAR with the wrong countries. Some "mission accomplished!"

Posted by Rosalind Merritt on August 19,2012 | 11:13 AM

Rating of the Presidents ignores the simple fact that George Washington defined and dignified the office. It was for those who followed to try to live up to the standards he established. Therefore in any rating, there’s Washington, and then the rest.

Posted by 2WarAbnVet on August 19,2012 | 10:55 AM

I agree with Mrilynn Meyer. Ronald Reagan does represent the conservative party. His policies created our current plutocracy and destroyed the middle class which continue to them further into the trash can.

Posted by Lem Budd on August 19,2012 | 10:43 AM

Asleep-at-the-wheel Reagan a great U. S.President? Oliver North or Nancy's astrologer might agree, but I certainly don't. Reagan's espousal of what G. W. Bush termed "voodoo economics" - the infamous trickle down theory - should be enough evidence of Reagan's lack of greatness.

Posted by William Allen on August 19,2012 | 10:18 AM

I agree with Ms. Meyer regarding Reagan. Incidents such as the Iran-Contra affair and the bombing of Marine barracks in Lebanon have, in the attempt to deify Reagan, been assigned to the scrap heap of history by conservative commentators. Can any one point out one lasting legacy of Reagan apart from making the rich richer and the epidemic of homelessness in most cities? The idea that he was the cause of the downfall of the Soviet Union is foolish and even if he was, does anyone really believe that Russia under Putin is really much different than it was under his Soviet predecessors. LBJ had many faults and Vietnam was a massive mistake but he gave us Medicare and the most important civil rights legislation since the Civil War among other things that have significantly changed the lives of tens of millions of Americans for the better. Even those who vociferously opposed these things and predicted that they would result in the destruction of the country would not even think about reversing them (although I do have to admit the new anti-fraud voter laws do smack of a backdoor attempt to subvert the Voting Rights Act.) Finally,is Mr. Merry really suggesting that Reagan should move ahead of Theodore Roosevelt on the list of great 20th century presidents? I would also be willing to put the accomplishments of Woodrow Wilson up against those of Reagan.

Posted by Steve on August 19,2012 | 09:30 AM

The problem with such ratings is that the raters tend to rate highly those that had political agendas that were most similar to their own. So, depending on whom you ask to serve as raters, the whole survey can become skewed.

Posted by Kerry Fitzpatrick on August 19,2012 | 09:01 AM

"The editor of the National Interest, a foreign policy publication, argues that while historians’ views are important, presidential greatness is best seen through the eyes of voters of the president’s time. The greatest of the “greats,” in other words, have the election records to show it." I think he is wrong is using the word 'great' to mean popular. Just because a president, or any leader for that matter, is popular with the people of his time, does not mean that time will judge him/her to be great.

Posted by Kathy on August 17,2012 | 12:18 PM

Sorry to disagree with Mr. Merry AND most writers who INSIST on playing this presidential ranking-game, but Ronald Reagan DOES NOT belong on ANY "Greatest" list! The revisionist continue to rewrite historical facts and ignore the realities of the times. I'm sure that Mr. Merry is old enough to have lived during Reagan's terms, but I question, not only his - but other writers who rank that administration so highly, the party affiliations of the authors. Was he a Republican then...is he now? As history is the study of the times lived...it is also written & read by those who wish to extort their own opinions & beliefs. True students look at all sides in search of what "may" be true....and then continue to question. That is why these "greatest" games can NEVER be taken seriously. (I also disagree with his analogy of Lou Gehrig, or ANY sports figure's ranking. RECORDS are set. Who had the most runs, the most strike-outs...these are UNDISPUTED FACTS...even if the person is disliked, his RECORD is recorded....Not the same in politics!)

Posted by Marilynn Meyer on August 16,2012 | 12:56 PM



Advertisement


Advertisement

Follow Us





First Name
Last Name
Address 1
Address 2
City
State   Zip
Email


Travel with Smithsonian




Smithsonian Store