PURE GOLD: REPUBLICANS CALL HISTORY A LIBERAL CONSPIRACY.

The Republicans recently discovered a new left-wing plot. C-Span asked more than 60 American historians to rate our presidents, repeating a poll that was held in 2000. Their results placed Bush II at number 36, behind Herbert Hoover and only slightly above Warren Harding—who spent a good deal of time playing poker—and William Henry Harrison, who died one month into his presidency.

Republicans have argued that the results were rigged because most historians are elitist liberals. It must have further annoyed them that the latest Bush was rated 41st out of 42 on the handling of international affairs.

A clarification here concerning the fact that the most recent Bush was 43rd president but only 42 men had served in that office from Washington to W: One president, Grover Cleveland, served non-consecutive terms and therefore wound up as both the 22nd and 24th president.

The high ranking of three Democrats must have further raised Republican blood pressure. Franklin Roosevelt ranked third, behind Lincoln and Washington, while Harry Truman took fifth and Jack Kennedy sixth.

FDR's standing would not astonish most Americans who see the New Deal as a positive historic development, although some senators have recently been telling us it was a huge failure. Roosevelt got high marks from the historians in a number of key categories: FDR was just behind Lincoln as a crisis leader, rated number one in his ability to persuade the public, and scored well on handling the economy, working with Congress and dealing with international affairs.

Actually the Republicans have no cause to complain. Four of their presidents made the top ten. However, three of those could be labeled liberal to moderate. Lincoln was at the head of the class, with Teddy Roosevelt fourth, just behind his cousin. Eisenhower ran eighth and the conservatives' darling, Ronald Reagan, tenth.

No doubt, many Republicans who still see Reagan as the Second Coming would have wanted him much higher, possibly just behind Lincoln and Washington.

The historians gave him a high rating on public persuasion, just behind FDR and Lincoln, but Reagan did not do well on issues relating to civil rights or the equality of justice for all citizens. FDR also came off poorly on that count, no doubt due to his un-Constitutional internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, and what could be argued as his essentially ignoring the Holocaust.

On civil rights and even-handed justice, Lincoln, no doubt helped by his Emancipation Proclamation, ran first, followed by four recent Democrats: Lyndon Johnson, who got civil rights legislation passed; Harry Truman, who integrated the armed forces, and Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, both southerners committed to integration and outspoken on civil rights issues.

TR's use of the bully pulpit to fight monopoly, support some forms of business regulation, and making conservation an important part of his platform earned him fourth place, the same position he held in 2000.

Truman and Kennedy, who followed, are both surprises. Truman left office with less than 25 percent in public support, but historians have been raising his standing ever since.

He stood up to the Soviets during the Berlin blockade; as mentioned earlier he integrated the armed forces, and backed a Marshall Plan which helped Europe recover from WWII devastation. But he also deserves points for his guts in bouncing the arrogant Douglas MacArthur, who wanted us to bomb China during the Korean War. To knock this war hero off his high horse took the kind of courage that few presidents have shown.

Jack Kennedy's fifth place ranking is something of a mystery. He doesn't receive conspicuously high rates from the historians on most issues, but his cool handling of the Cuban missile crisis must have loomed large. He also intervened in support of post-secondary educational integration, although it took Johnson to get civil rights legislation passed. But JFK was responsible for increasing our involvement in Vietnam, an action Eisenhower had warned against.

JFK was a fresh face and represented a new generation.The Camelot image may also have helped. His violent death may have factored into the historians' decision.

He was lucky in one respect. The media in the '60's and earlier did not cover the private lives of presidents.

Almost no one ever saw FDR in a wheelchair. Kennedy's womanizing was probably more pronounced than Clinton's, but these personal activities remained secret until after his death. He did have one liaison with a woman close to the Mafia, which could have threatened national security.

Which brings us to the case of Clinton, now sitting in 15th place, a nice jump from 22nd in 2000. There can be no doubt that Clinton's moral lapses seriously hurt his presidential standing. But he is clearly moving up, having passed Bush I, who sits in 18th place.

Clinton gets high marks on civil rights and affirmative action, as well as his attractive economic record in job creation and budget-balancing. He gets good marks as a crisis leader, no doubt related to his handling of the war with Serbia over Bosnia and then Kosovo. He may have been helped when compared to the performance of his successor.

While Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace after Watergate, he still ranked eight slots ahead of Bush II, in 28th place, helped no doubt by his reaching out to China and his comparatively moderate domestic economic policies.

LBJ missed the top ten by one slot, coming right after Reagan in 11th place. His ability with Congress and his civil rights accomplishments are of course compromised by his decision to turn Vietnam into a major war.

In the top ten, Jefferson ranks seventh, just behind Kennedy, his Louisiana Purchase and exploration in the far west adding to the luster he gained as author of the Declaration of Independence.

Woodrow Wilson, at ninth spot, helped win WWI but failed to end American isolationism after the war.

Of the 19th Century presidents, the biggest upward move was registered by Ulysses Grant, who has been getting better reviews in recent biographies. He is now given credit for supporting Reconstruction in the south, of fighting the Ku Klux Klan, of not being as corrupt as earlier works had indicated. And the reported severity of his drinking problem has been minimized.

One wonders how Rush Limbaugh, who currently seems like the titular head of the Republican Party, would rate the presidents. He would probably move Reagan up to number three, if not higher, and put Hoover, a true believer in the unfettered free market, into the top ten.

Fortunately for history, Limbaugh does not qualify as an historian, but only as a loud-mouthed radio host who can't tell the difference between the Preamble to the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.