Jaywalking By Gail Jarvis
(2010-08-18 at 16:56:48 )

Jaywalking By Gail Jarvis

The segment "Jaywalking" is a popular feature of the Jay Leno show. Mr.
Leno asks people on the street incredibly easy questions, many about
American history. Although their lack of knowledge is astonishing; for
instance, one adult respondent named Benjamin Franklin as our first
president, you can not help but laugh. However, it is not so funny when
you realize that quite a few of these people have formal educations;
while others are even teachers and professors. So it seems that outside
of the knowledge required to perform their given jobs, many are woefully
uninformed. Are these "people on the street" that Leno interviews an
anomaly? Or do they represent a microcosm of a larger portion of our
society?

My opinion is that they are indeed representative of a sizable segment of
the American public; a segment appallingly uninformed regarding American
history. In addition to being uninformed, I maintain that many are also
misinformed as a result of having been schooled by the new generation of
educators, educators influenced by cultural changes since the 1960s.
Sadly, impressions made by teachers and college professors linger for
some time after students leave college and continue to affect their
perceptions of political issues as well as voting preferences.

The mindset of many of todays professors is revealed by a recent "best
and worst" poll. These polls are more than a little subjective, whether
they rank movies, cities, countries, or other subjects. This particular
poll was based on responses from college professors and it ranked
American presidents from the best to the worst. Of course, presidential
polls have been around for years but rankings change as political
ideologies change and this poll is no exception.

The Siena Research Institute recently asked 238 professors to rank our
presidents according to predetermined categories. The Siena poll was
released on July 1st and many, including myself, found the selections a
little baffling. We were especially baffled by their ranking of Barack
Obama as our fifteenth best president, even though he had been in office
less than 18 months. Apparently his inclusion is what prompted one
observer to use the term "premature" in describing the poll.

("Premature" also describes the Nobel Committees choice of Obama for its
peace prize after he had been president for only twelve days. Prior to
the selection of Obama, only two American presidents had been awarded the
prize - Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter. Although their peace-making
efforts were not overly successful, and certainly not long lasting, these
men did work toward their goals for more than 12 days, providing the
Nobel Committee with at least something to base its judgment on.)

Of course, Obamas inclusion is not the only problem with the Siena
presidential poll. Because the selections are heavily influenced by
modern-day liberal values, some former presidents did not fare as well
as they might have. But should presidents in prior generations be judged
by political opinions currently in fashion? Should not more weight be
given to the circumstances and attitudes existing during their time in
office, especially those who served over a century ago?

I think you can sense the influence contemporary attitudes had on poll
results by looking at our nations fifteen best presidents as selected by
these "scholars":

* Franklin Roosevelt
* Theodore Roosevelt
* Abraham Lincoln
* George Washington
* Thomas Jefferson
* James Madison
* James Monroe
* Woodrow Wilson
* Harry Truman
* Dwight Eisenhower
* John Kennedy
* James Polk
* Bill Clinton
* Andrew Jackson
* Barack Obama

Naturally the poll has been criticized, prompting those on the left to
come to its defense. One annoyed blogger stated: "The right-wing media
has, of course, already begun deriding the list because it was decided
upon by a group of liberal, elitist professors - in other words,
scholars who have actually done some research on the subject of
presidents." Other scholars, those without liberal credentials, have
also done some research on the subject of presidents. And their research
would result in quite a different ranking.

As for the reasons the professors made the selections they did, I could
find only one brief comment from Dr. Douglas Lonnstrom, Founding Director
of the Siena Research Institute. As justification for the selection of
Franklin Roosevelt as Americas best president, Professor Lonnstrom
claims: "He got America out of a depression and a war."

I am surprised that any serious scholar would claim that Roosevelt ended
the depression. Many economists would argue that Roosevelts policies
actually made economic conditions worse and that the depression would
have ended sooner without his meddling. One school of economists
maintains that it took the manufacturing build-up for World War Two to
end the depression. Another school makes the persuasive argument that the
economy did not rebound until Roosevelts death allowed the cutback of
some of the governments massive interferences with market forces. A
gradual recovery then began as entrepreneurs and investors regained
confidence in the market place.

Of course, Roosevelt was our Commander in Chief during most of World War
Two and when he died on April 12, 1945, an Allied victory was close at
hand. (The official date given for the end of the war is September 2nd.)
Roosevelt probably did what he thought best for the war effort. But
Professor Lonnstrom seems to imply that Roosevelt accomplished things
that some of our other presidents might not have been able to accomplish
under the same circumstances. This is a questionable assumption.

Although this Siena poll did include Washington, Jefferson and Madison
among the top fifteen best presidents, I suspect that their rankings will
sink lower in future polls. As our nation continues its move toward the
left of the political spectrum, concepts of the Founding Fathers, which
are already being neglected, will be even further ignored. Indeed there
is a strong feeling among progressives that the process of legally
amending the constitution is too cumbersome and time-consuming. Instead
they advocate what they call a "living constitution" - a flexible
constitution that allows for hassle-free expedited interpretations that
bolster whatever political agenda is currently in vogue.

If rankings were based solely on whose administration did the most long-
term good or the most long-term harm to our country, I would place
Franklin Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln near the bottom. But if we move to
the bottom of the Siena list and see the five worst presidents as picked
by the professors, we will find the usual suspects:

39. George W. Bush

40. Franklin Pierce

41. Warren Harding

42. James Buchanan

43. Andrew Johnson

(The list includes only 43 rankings instead of 44 because Grover Cleveland served two non-consecutive terms.)

It is fashionable nowadays to disparage Andrew Johnson, primarily because
of his opposition to the Reconstruction of defeated Southern states after
the Civil War. Todays up-to-date versions of Reconstruction portray it in
a positive light that "corrects" the previously held negative versions of
that dubious social experiment. As a result of public indoctrination
since the 1960s, many Americans no longer question the federal
governments right to alter the internal affairs not only of states but
schools, privately owned companies, indeed, any organization. But in
Johnsons time the idea of a federal government that could rework the
structure and functioning of an individual state had not yet come to
fruition.

Like his deceased predecessor Lincoln, Johnson also took a lenient
approach to the readmission of seceded Southern states back into the
Union. All he required was that they repeal secession ordinances, take a
loyalty oath and abolish slavery. But the Radical Republicans in Congress
wanted not only to reconstruct the South but to punish it. Johnson
courageously held firm against their pressure. The Radical Republicans
became so frustrated that they tried to remove him from office. Luckily
they failed.

I suspect that one of the reasons for professors ranking Franklin Pierces
presidency so low is that he signed the Kansas-Nebraska Act. This Act
allowed newly formed states in the Western territories seeking admission
to the Union to decide for themselves whether or not they would allow
slavery. Anti-slavery forces wanted the federal government to impose an
outright ban on slavery in the territories. But at that time, our country
was still a voluntary union of states who could determine their own fate.
Franklin Pierce was a firm believer in states rights, as were many of his
contemporary New Englanders.

The currently sanctioned version of this historic episode claims that the
South wanted to expand slavery into the territories, while the North
wanted to prohibit it. Consequently this Act created a serious conflict
in Kansas that resulted in violent clashes between the two factions, and
a vast number of lives were lost. This local conflict escalated into a
national conflict that became one of the leading causes of the Civil War.

A more impassive appraisal of events will reveal that Southerners who
migrated to the Western territories were, like their Northern
counterparts, simply seeking a better livelihood, and choosing to escape
the diminishing opportunities in the East. In the so-called Kansas
bloodbath, less than 60 lives were lost. Persons who died were killed
primarily by border ruffians, including the infamous fanatic John Brown.
Those who migrated from North and South to Kansas actually cooperated
with one another, coordinated their efforts and in a few years they were
able to seek admission to the Union as a free state rather than a slave
state.

By signing the Kansas-Nebraska bill, Franklin Pierce made the kind of
political and pragmatic decision that many presidents have had to make.
Our generation should not find fault with his decision.

I cannot end this commentary without a sympathetic mention of that most
maligned of presidents, Warren Harding. His administration is usually
described as scandal-ridden but it was not nearly as scandalous as other
administrations, especially that of Ulysses S. Grant whom the professors
ranked much higher than Harding. I suspect that Harding ranks low in the
Siena poll because it favors presidents who imposed radical changes on
our society. But coerced governmental changes have always been plagued
with problems, especially unintended consequences that are often
detrimental. Although Warren Harding did accomplish many things during
his administration, he was wise enough to know when laissez-faire was
needed: when government should stand aside and let Adam Smiths
"invisible hand" do its work.

Mr. Harding is also criticized for keeping the United States out of the
League of Nations. But looking back on the League and its successor, the
United Nations, after all these years, Hardings decision seems well
justified

Although I obviously disagree with this presidential poll, I am not
overly concerned about it. It will soon be replaced by yet another poll
that will revise its rankings. But I am concerned about what the polls
participating professors might be teaching their students. The presidents
with high rankings are obviously the ones the professors admire, those
presidents who are noted for expanding the role of the federal government.

We can rightly assume that the professors are presenting their students
with a version of American history that disparages limited government
and promotes an all-powerful central government.

July 20, 2010

Gail Jarvis is a free-lance writer.

Copyright © 2010 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or
in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.