Obtaining oral sex from an intern in the Oval Office or selling arms to an enemy of the state? Bombs in Iraq or in Kosovo? Lower taxes or more social programs?
American college and university professors likely weighed these and other factors when asked to answer a survey determining which of the past four American presidents they believe qualify as "great."
The study, sponsored by Alvernia College in Reading, Pa., surveyed 250 full-time history professors, asking them to rate each of the four most recent former American presidents on a scale of "greatness" including "great," "near-great," "above-average," "average," "below average," or "failing."
According to a press release issued by the college, Bill Clinton earned the highest overall score, followed by Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush. (George W. Bush was not considered, as his presidency has not yet finished.)
The results of the survey were intended to generate discourse among scholars regarding the use of the term "great" in regards to national leadership, historically as well as in current events.
"We are regularly voting and making decisions regarding politics," said Tufts Assistant Political Science Professor Deborah Schildkraut, whose teaches course on American public opinion and political psychology. "There is value in looking at past presidents that were successful ... it helps us think about the kinds of questions we should be asking about our presidents now."
Schildkraut said that these "kinds of questions" will differ widely through the range of the electorate, and she offered several potential considerations used in evaluating national leadership.
"Often, conditions on the ground are not the same as the ideal we espouse; does a president bring us closer to this?" she said. "Is a president willing to make decisions that may be very unpopular at the time? Lincoln, for example - at the time, half the country hated him," she said.
On the other hand, Schildkraut said that some visions of greatness may lean towards the less grandiose.
"Other people would say that being great is keeping us on a steady course," she said. "Some people might say Ford was great for not having us fall apart after the Nixon scandals."
The profile, however, suggested that historians have their own idea of what is "great." Although Clinton earned the highest overall rating, not a single historian surveyed listed him as among the "greats." It was Reagan that scored the highest number of perfect "greats," although the high number of "below-average" marks he received ultimately pulled down his overall score.
"One gets the sense that 'great presidents' come at the expense of congressional power," Tufts Assistant History Professor of Benjamin Carp said. A specialist in colonial, revolutionary and early American history, Carp offered the perspective of an observer of long-term historical trends in American history.
"Greatness is often defined by the strenuous or extensive exercise of executive power," Carp said. "[Such as] if [presidents] fought a war or threw a lot of power around to get something pushed through Congress."
"The 20th century has seen such a great expansion of executive power," he said. "And maybe in today's world of increased globalization and a permanent military apparatus ... maybe that's what we need, but I get concerned that this emphasis on the 'greatness' of presidents is redolent of the celebration of the majesty of the monarch."
Political Science Professor Kent Portney, who specializes in public policy and political behavior, said that bold action and apparent executive independence might factor in to an individual's conception of "great" leadership, yet maintained that this was only one of many potential perspectives.
"I don't know that [a focus on bold action] is what people universally use," Portney said. "If you are of the ideological persuasion of the president and you support his agenda, accompanied by a boldness to get that done, you appreciate his expansion of executive power. It's conditioned."
While prescribing to a broad interpretation of the term "great," Portney hesitates to use it himself. "I resist the terminology. I would think that it is a multidimensional concept, and how you interpret that, which dimensions are the most important to you," he said.
In the scholastic tradition of academic equivocation, several professors agreed that determining "greatness" may be best left to future generations.
"This greatness thing is a very historically-framed concept," said History Professor Reed Ueda, who specializes in urban and migration studies.
"In history, it's not just relative; you have to see how the consequences play out," he said. "You really can't prejudge. Historians are more aware of this than other social scientists."
Furthermore, American presidents may be in a position to acquire credit for accomplishments they don't deserve, as a stroke of luck can change the historical legacy of a president forever.
"A lot of it has to do with being in the right place at the right time, if you are able to rise to the challenge during war or hard times," Schildkraut said.
