The Road Ends Here
Over the past four weeks, we’ve been doing a March Madness-style bracket in which we evaluate presidential records head-to-head. For an explanation of our criteria and recap of earlier rounds, see the earlier posts:
- Lincoln’s Quarter
- Washington’s Quarter
- FDR’s Quarter
- Teddy’s Quarter
In this post, we’re going to go from an Elite Eight to a single champion! At the end, we’ll provide some observations and lessons learned from all the fun we’ve been having.
Remember, our seedings are based on the C-Span presidential rankings survey done in 2021. Here are our quarterfinalists, in the order they are seeded:
- (1) Abraham Lincoln
- (2) George Washington
- (4) Theodore Roosevelt
- (6) Harry Truman
- (7) Thomas Jefferson
- (9) Ronald Reagan
- (12) James Monroe
- (14) William McKinley
Will underdogs McKinley and Monroe build on their top-five upsets? Can anyone stop the Lincoln and Washington juggernauts? Let’s get into it.
Quarterfinals
(1) Abraham Lincoln vs. (9) Ronald Reagan
Paths so far. Lincoln: def. Hayes 5-2, def. Madison 4-3. Reagan: def. Coolidge 5-2, def. Cleveland 5-2.
This one seems clear-cut on several points, but gets inevitably controversial. Reagan’s governorship in California gives him a clear point for contributions out of office (although one could make a case for Lincoln’s role in shaping the nascent Republican party and its strong anti-slavery positions). Reagan also gets a point for a generally more competent cabinet than Lincoln’s (Lincoln’s choice of Andrew Johnson as a running mate in 1864 definitely hurts him there). Contributions to prosperity is another weakness for Lincoln given the trauma of the Civil War on the nation. Three points for Reagan.
One could, I suppose, make an argument that Lincoln’s executive overreaches during the Civil War should count against him regarding consistency with the Constitution. However, his maneuvers to preserve the union and end slavery were clearly in the spirit of these principles if not following the letter thereof. Besides, Reagan’s administration engaged in far more such overreaches—a disadvantage that many modern presidents face under my criteria. One could also argue that the Johnson VP choice was a major externality that he should be penalized for, but we’ve already done so in the VP/cabinet category. Therefore I give Lincoln credit for fewest externalities in light of the huge budget deficits and minor military overreaches under Reagan. Besides, by forcing the end of slavery, Lincoln truly did leave the country better off than he found it. While Reagan’s vision was compelling and, in many ways, made conservatism cool again, it cannot hold a candle to Lincoln’s. Three points for Honest Abe.
The matchup hinges on how I apply my foreign policy & crisis management criteria. If we include the Confederacy as a foreign power, Lincoln’s execution of the war has to give him the point. If we don’t, the Reagan likely enjoys an advantage due to the adroit foreign policy that contributed to the end of the Cold War. Yet the crisis part of this criteria is far less competitive—it should clearly go to Lincoln given that the Civil War was a far more difficult situation than what Reagan faced, and few presidents in history would likely have handled it with the same combination of morality, decisiveness, and restraint that Lincoln showed. Therefore I give Lincoln this point, and he wins another close one over a tough opponent.
Final result: Lincoln wins, 4-3.
(2) George Washington vs. (7) Thomas Jefferson
Paths so far: Washington: def. Van Buren 7-0, def. Adams 7-0. Jefferson: def. Carter 6-1, def. Taft 5-2.
Two giants from Virginia have yet to be seriously tested. The stage is set for another major showdown. A more restrained executive, Washington gets a point for consistency. Though his cabinet members were often at each other’s throats, the list is a “who’s who” of Revolutionary figures: Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, and others. Jefferson gets credit for externalities, largely due to the Louisiana Purchase, which was the first step toward ensuring America would become a continental nation. One could argue that this was also a major foreign policy coup, but I give Washington the edge there, considering also his balancing act managing the nascent crises the new nation faced—the Whiskey Rebellion, continued strife on the frontier, and the tightrope walk between Britain and France.
Vision and prosperity are two points Jefferson needs to stay in the race. He gets the vision point, largely because his “Jeffersonian” vision of a national of weak central government politically dominated by states and economically dominated by agriculture. Washington did not have as strong a vision for America’s future. To the extent that he did endorse a competing vision of manufacturing, trade, and strong central government, he can only take limited credit for this—as this point of view is synonymous with Alexander Hamilton, Washington’s treasury secretary. The fact that it is “Hamiltonian” and not “Washingtonian” speaks to the relative ambivalence of Washington’s policy views, and so Jefferson get’s a point for vision.
Prosperity is another tough one. On one hand, I agree with the view that much of Hamilton’s economic policies under Washington helped America to get on a solid fiscal footing. On the other, Jefferson, who opposed these ideas as Washington’s secretary of state, did notably little to undo them as president, leaving a strong economic foundation on which he added the massive Louisiana territory. Because of this, I ever-so-slightly give Jefferson the edge on prosperity, tying the score at 3-3.
It comes down to first citizenship and out-of-office contributions. We’ve already discussed Jefferson’s dalliance with one of his slaves in a previous round, but lest we forget, Washington owned slaves as well. Let’s compare each based on their other contributions. Washington’s most notable one is his leadership of the Continental Army during the revolution. Jefferson’s is the authorship of the Declaration of Independence. These are two immense contributions that are subjective to compare.
At the end, I give it to Washington. Why? Granted, Jefferson’s words incorporated lasting and inspiring principles into America’s founding, which helped give American ideals the resonance over the centuries. There were more inspiring rhetoricians than Washington, and even more capable generals, in colonial America. But there were none that could have led the revolutionary troops with the same humility while also commanding the complete loyalty of the troops—Arnold, Gates, Greene, Knox, and other revolutionary officers cannot compare. So, while a revolution without Jefferson may have lacked a voice, a revolution without Washington would have lacked a revolution.
Final result: Washington wins, 4-3.
(14) William McKinley vs. (6) Harry Truman
Paths so far: McKinley: def. Clinton 4-3, def. FDR 5-2. Truman: def. Garfield 6-1, def. Jackson 4-3.
McKinley is making a strong case as the Cinderella story of the tournament so far. Against Truman, he has a chance, in a matchup that lacks the luster of the first two quarterfinals.
Truman gets credit for his Cold War posturing and the vision of the Truman Doctrine. McKinley gets credit for presidential restraint and a cabinet that included Teddy Roosevelt. We also give McKinley credit for general prosperity. Truman’s leaving the Korean War to Eisenhower works against him—aside from that, neither of these two have major externalities. Contributions out of office go to McKinley as well. Although both served in major wars, McKinley rose one rank higher than Truman (major vs. captain). The result is another McKinley win, and the Cinderella run continues.
Final result: McKinley wins, 5-2.
(4) Theodore Roosevelt vs. (12) James Monroe
Paths so far: Roosevelt: def. Hoover 5-2, def. Grant 4-3. Monroe: def. Bush 6-1, def. Eisenhower 4-3.
Roosevelt starts off with an advantage: he picks up points for prosperity and citizenship, mostly on the back of his trust-busting actions and military service. He also gets credit for vision given his identification with the progressive wave that overtook America for the first few decades of the 20th century.
Yet Monroe will not go quietly. The president behind the Monroe Doctrine, he gets points for foreign policy and fewest externalities. He also gets credit for consistency given Teddy’s often over-energetic executive authority.
Another tie is thrust into the VP/cabinet debate. While Monroe’s cabinet represents a cross-section of political forces at the time of his presidency, Roosevelt’s cabinet includes a future president—Taft, who would also be a Supreme Court justice—who made the Round of 16 in our bracket. Therefore we give Teddy the edge, and he moves on.
Final result: Roosevelt wins, 4-3.
Semifinals
(1) Abraham Lincoln vs. (4) Theodore Roosevelt
Paths so far: Lincoln: def. Hayes 5-2, def. Madison 4-3, def. Reagan 4-3. Roosevelt: def. Hoover 5-2, def. Grant 4-3, def. Monroe 4-3.
Even though the top seeds in their respective quarters, these two don’t provide a competitive matchup. Lincoln’s handling of the Civil War, consistency with and respect for America’s founding ideals, and his clear vision are simply too much. Roosevelt ekes out points for a more competent set of cabinet officials (Lincoln’s VP of Johnson again hurts him here) and for the prosperity of the early 1900s. But at the end of the day, it never feels in doubt.
Final result: Lincoln wins, 5-2.
(2) George Washington vs. (14) William McKinley
Paths so far: Washington: def. Van Buren 7-0, def. Adams 7-0, def. Jefferson 4-3. Paths so far: McKinley: def. Clinton 4-3, def. FDR 5-2, def. Truman 5-2.
Well, he had a good run. McKinley won relatively comfortable victories over FDR and Truman to book a spot in the final four. But both those candidates had clear weaknesses based on our criteria—weaknesses that Washington simply doesn’t have. We don’t need to regurgitate all this here, as McKinley’s record does not measure up.
This is the type of semifinal that feels over before it starts—many fans head for the exits at halftime.
Final result: Washington wins, 7-0.
Final: (1) Lincoln vs. (2) Washington
Paths so far: Lincoln: def. Hayes 5-2, def. Madison 4-3, def. Reagan 4-3, def. Roosevelt 5-2. Washington: def. Van Buren 7-0, def. Adams 7-0, def. Jefferson 4-3, def. McKinley 7-0.
This one feels inevitable, a collision of American juggernauts, and an epic follow-up to two anticlimactic semifinals. Given the stakes, it’s tempting to reinvent our criteria simply for this occasion, but that wouldn’t be fair to these two, who have fared the best against our criteria thus far.
The Civil War remains the most severe crisis the nation suffered since 1789, and Lincoln still gets that point. His words in the Gettysburg Address and the Emancipation Proclamation elucidated his consistent commitment to preserving the union and dismantling slavery. While his abolitionist bona fides were questioned by many during his time and remain so to some extent, he still gets the point. He also gets the point for externalities, given that seeing the nation through the Civil War meets our demand on this criteria: leaving the nation better than you find it.
For his part, Washington remains among the most ideologically consistent presidents, with indispensable contributions during the Revolutionary War. He picks up a cheap point on prosperity, partly from the carnage of the Civil War, partly from Hamilton’s financial system, which stabilized the government’s fiscal position.
It’s as if it was always meant to come down to this: the vice president/cabinet tiebreaker! This is bad news for Honest Abe—in his four previous matchups, Lincoln has never won this point. Given that some members of Lincoln’s cabinet intrigued against him in the 1864 election, and his final vice president (Johnson, whose weaknesses we’ve well-covered), this is hardly surprising. We can give Lincoln some credit for having the courage to bring potential political rivals into his White House. But Washington had a less problematic VP and a more eminent group of lieutenants. Thus, the entire race hinges on Adams and Jefferson vs. Andrew Johnson—and Washington stands alone.
Final result: Washington wins, 4-3.
Final Thoughts
What a fun exercise! These were some of my favorite posts to write. That said, it is an imperfect science.
As I mentioned previously, the results of any presidential comparisons are ultimately going to depend on the criteria you use. In my criteria, I tried to capture a wide range of factors that I think—in hindsight—determine whether an administration was successful. By equal-weighting them, my framework penalizes presidents who are known for getting one big thing right—FDR (World War II), Obama (Vision/communication), Nixon (foreign policy), and even Lincoln (Civil War)—especially if they have clear weaknesses. For instance, Nixon’s foreign policy may have been brilliant and helped to end the Cold War, but I can only give two points for that (foreign policy and externalities), which are offset by his failings regarding Watergate.
The criteria I use also reflect my own assessments and biases. My readers may draw different conclusion, and that’s okay—just take a moment to reflect on what criteria you’re using & how it’s different. Yet using some set of fixed metrics, though imperfect, is more consistent and bias-proof than a more subjective ranking system.
I would guess that to voters ahead of an election, the prosperity, vision/communication, and citizenship/contributions categories are disproportionately important, and together probably represent more than half of voters’ decision-making inputs. The VP/cabinet category is likely less important, given that most cabinet picks are determined after the election is over. Voters typically do not think about externalities. For that matter, many modern voters either ignore or misinterpret America’s original ideals, making this less important as well.
Again, my criteria take the benefit of hindsight: I’m able to evaluate presidents on how they have performed, not how they might perform. Still, I think my choice of criteria had some critical impacts on how I interpreted individual matchups:
- Since many modern presidential actions are beyond the scope of the founders’ conceptions of federal and/or executive power, my focus on consistency ensures that modern presidents are almost always at a disadvantage against older presidents.
- Since many actions have unforeseen negative consequences, my focus on externalities places a burden on presidents who took especially bold actions, even if they appeared necessary at the time, in favor of more passive presidents who avoided long-term errors.
These are a few examples of how framing can shape outcomes in thought experiments like this. That said, I remain fairly comfortable with how my criteria held up in practice. If you disagree with how I applied my criteria or found interesting new angles to apply, drop a comment on this post—I’d love to hear your take.
Happy madness!
