Would you describe any of our recent presidents as great?  I wouldn’t.  But that’s not a knock on any of our Commanders in Chief either.

The death of presidential historian Arthur Schlesinger last week got me thinking about presidential greatness.  One of Schlesinger’s colleagues said Schlesinger believed great presidents governed from the center.  He also said that Schlesinger, despite being liberal, didn’t like extremists from either side.  (You’ll have to trust me since I couldn’t find the video of the historian on the website of The News Hour With Jim Lehrer.)

It seems Schlesinger is right in a number of ways.  Granted, I’m only an amateur historian who rates the three greatest presidents in this order: Lincoln, FDR, and Teddy Roosevelt.  But the theory fits my Big Three.  Lincoln governed to keep the Union in place “with malice toward none.”  TR evened the playing field for the average guy against the robber barons. FDR created a brain trust that helped us endure the Depression and then World War II and changed the 20th Century. If I may be so bold, let me add a corollary to Schlesinger’s theory.  (Hey, it’s my website.)  I believe that moving to the center can improve any presidency – even the bad, mediocre, and good presidents.

		Take JFK.  There’s plenty of historical information that chastises JFK’s mistakes like the Bay of Pigs and his own womanizing.  But conservatives always recall JFK’s tax-cut which jump-started the economy in the early 1960s.  That’s not a liberal.  Schlesinger, who worked as a Kennedy advisor, described Kennedy as an open thinker.  Richard Reeves, another JFK biographer, believes that JFK was becoming a good husband, father, and leader months before he was assassinated.

		Take Nixon.  He was a good president.  Sure, he had his personal and ethical problems, too.  But Nixon maintained his good standing, historically, thanks to his efforts to make peace with China.

		Take Clinton.  I believe history will judge him as a good president.  He would have never reached greatness, because of the fortunate time he held office: no major wars; and a great economic cycle.  What made Clinton a better than average president was the election of the Republican Congress in 1994.  It forced him to move or govern from the center.

		The same is true for Reagan.  He is applauded as the president who ended the Soviet Union.  Surely, the massive American arms build-up helped bankrupt the U.S.S.R.  But without Reagan’s relationship with Soviet leader Gorbachev, the fall of the Soviet Union might have been much less peaceful.

Here’s what’s most interesting about these presidents’ movement to the center.  Those movements happened during the presidents’ second terms.  With the exception of JFK, these presidents were free from the supporters and donors who helped put them in office. 

So, what’s happening with our current President?  I believe history will be kinder to him about the Middle East than the media is today.  Call me optimistic, but I think at some point there will be some stability there.  Historians will say that George W. Bush was the first president to see an overall and risky approach to the Middle East.  He won’t get high marks on managing a war.  And he will lose points for squandering the good feeling from other nations after 9/11.

Still, I don’t see this President governing from the center on issues like energy independence, health care, entitlement programs, or education – catering to a wider scope of Americans.  He is too loyal to the corporate dollars that put him in office.