Several readers and friends sent me this new poll, described as the product of historians in some sources and a the opinion of political science organization in others. It looks to me like the latter is more correct: the thing was the brainchild (I’m being generous here) of Brandon Rottinghaus and Justin Vaughn, both professors of political science, and that’s what their degrees and credentials are in as well. Calling them “historians” is misleading, but that’s what the Times and others sources are doing. Political science is not the same academic field as history, though of course it involves the study of history. I would never call myself a professional historian. My degrees are in American Government ( the College That Must Not Be Named’s version of political science) and law.

I was tempted to dissect the poll, which famously ranks the spectacularly incompetent Joe Biden as the 14th best President and Donald Trump dead last as the worst, in order to add to previous posts in which I described how ruinously political and untrustworthy the field of history has become. I decided that this would be unfair, since these biased history dummies are not a group of historians. I also decided that such an obviously partisan and politically motivated poll was not worth dignifying by treating it as anything but.

Just the small bits I have learned from various reports are sufficient to tag it as res ipsa loquitur, or self-exposing. Ranking Biden as anywhere other than near or at the bottom of the metaphorical Presidential barrel (or not ranking him at all, since his first term isn’t over) should be obviously ridiculous to anyone who knows anything about our Chief Executives beyond the names of a few of them—which, tragically, is probably a minority of the population. Ranking Trump dead last, though I could make a theoretical argument for it (and will in a minute), is more defensible but ultimately absurd as well, giving fair consideration to the competition and his administration’s accomplishments. That ranking simply says, in big block red letters, “We’re Trump-Deranged and virtue-signalling, and not to be taken seriously.” Got it.

Other results of the poll that I’ve learned from articles like this one are equally damning, like ranking Biden ahead of Ronald Reagan, placing Obama 7th, even as a full awfulness of his Presidency becomes more evident with each passing year, and rating Woodrow Wilson as 17th, when he is almost certainly the worst President of them all. Woody was a Democrat, though, and that seems to be what counts most to academics.

When I learned about the poll, my immediate reaction was that it is one more desperation effort to try to bolster Biden’s fading chances at beating Trump on November, on the theory that it might sway sufficient numbers of ignorant voters by making them think that Presidential authorities have pondered the matter objectively and concluded that Biden is a very good President while Trump was not. It might work—much of the voting public is that ignorant.

Apparently these political scientists posing as historians feel it’s worth it to mimic the acumen of Rob Reiner and Joy Behar if the effort helps drag poor Joe over the finish line. It’s kind of noble in a way.

I had resolved not to post about this crap when I read in Ann Althouse’s morning post this quote from the two profs: “Biden’s most important achievements may be that he rescued the presidency from Trump, resumed a more traditional style of presidential leadership and is gearing up to keep the office out of his predecessor’s hands this fall.” That’s as much of a smoking gun as the rankings of Biden, Trump, Reagan, Obama and Wilson. The attitude it conveys is the same kind of logic that conclludes that Barack Obama was a great President because he was (and is) black, sort of. Actually, it’s even worse: by that reasoning, the Wuhan virus was a wonderful thing and the mainstream media performed a national service by undermining Donald Trump and his ability to govern from Election Day 2016 through Election Day 2020.

Oh…right, I promised to explain how Trump could be ranked worst, though I will go into more detail when I get to him in this slowly unfolding series.

There are two main parts of the American Presidency. One is, in British government terms, its Prime Minister function, involving executive governing, and the other is the British monarchy function, for the President functions as a human flag, the living symbol of the United States and everything good and aspirational that it represents. Our best and greatest Presidents have handled both roles with equal skill, and they bolster and support each other. Donald Trump, by any measure, was atrocious at the symbolic aspect of the job, easily the worst ever. (Washington, FDR, Ike, Kennedy, Reagan and Obama generally excelled in that role.) Unlike the others, Trump was never allowed to fulfill the human flag part of the job, but he still had little interest in it either. It is, however, only half of the Presidency, however vital.

The main impact of this embarrassing poll—embarrassing to those who participated in it and anyone who gives it credence—is that it reminded me that I really have to finish my “Worst President” study.