by Gwynn Guilford
Journalist and (James K. Polk) historian Robert W. Merry's recent book Where They Stand attempts to democratize the parlor sport of ranking presidents by emphasizing input from the leader's contemporaries – particularly voters – instead of just historians. In an interview with Megan Gambino, he explains what FDR's and Reagan's popularity says about the American voter:
The voters hailed them both at the time…. 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.
Merry notes that "great presidents all did something that changed the political landscape of America and set the country on a new course." And, therefore, here's why Clinton will never be "great":
He crafted a center left mode of governing that was very effective…. 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.
When John Coyne reviewed the book recently – more or less extolling Merry's populist, voter-referendum metric of presidential assessment – he also called attention to a leitmotif in Merry's latest book, the potentially dangerous influence of presidential advisers.
The Dish 