Last week at Hofstra University on Long Island, a conference was held entitled "The Leadership Difference: Rating the Presidents."  It was a daylong affair with assorted historians and political scientists debating the merits of periodically rating U.S. presidents.

There was significant disagreement among the participants as to whether anything could really be learned from these rankings.  Formidable problems exist with such endeavors, such as taking into account different circumstances for different presidents, determining the criteria used for judging, and noting the bias of the judges.  After all, as acknowledged by one conference speaker, many historians tend to be urban, liberal Democrats.  Hence, they may be biased against presidents who did not support big, activist government.

However, there were differing viewpoints.  For example, Alvin Felzenberg of the Heritage Foundation was one of the speakers.  He pointed out that perhaps economists should be sought out for their opinions in these efforts to rate the presidents.  As an economist myself, I say, "Go Al!" 

Felzenberg pointed out that economists "might have a different view on intervention in the markets" by government.  Well, that's debatable.  In fact, a good number of economists aren't all that bright when it comes to sorting out the proper roles for government and the private sector.  Too many ignore the incentives for waste in government, and the incentives in the private sector to make profits by serving consumers.  Nonetheless, we economists, rather than leaving the job completely to academic historians and political scientists, couldn't make things any worse by being included.

From the perspective of this supply-side economist, four presidents certainly would garner much better rankings than they usually get from political scientists and historians.  Ulysses S. Grant would receive enormous credit for helping to get rid of the Civil War income tax and for getting the U.S. dollar back on the gold standard.  Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge would get big boosts for turning away from Wilsonian activism by cutting spending and slashing tax rates.  And Ronald Reagan would benefit from reducing tax rates, stemming the tide of government regulation, and helping to restore America's economic confidence.

In the end, rating presidents is not only fun-as was noted by several speakers at the Hofstra conference-but it helps us to think about history and the presidency.  That's always good news, but especially with a presidential campaign upon us.

Raymond J. Keating
Chief Economist
Small Business Survival Committee
and co-author of
U.S. by the Numbers:
Figuring What's Left, Right, and Wrong with America State by State