Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Study Shows Liberal Bias Affects Historical Ranking Of Presidents

May 27, 2011 by  

Study Shows Liberal Bias Affects Historical Ranking Of Presidents

A recently released University of Miami study shows that when historians rank Presidents, the top spots always go to Commanders in Chief who ruled from the left. According to the study, these choices reflect a fundamentally liberal bias in academia, as opposed to the merits of the Presidents themselves.

“Political science professor Joseph E. Uscinski, one of the study’s authors, said the new analysis shows that the overwhelmingly liberal academic community consistently ranks Republican Presidents about 10 spots lower than the public would,” a Washington Times article read. 

“When progressive or liberal presidencies dominate these lists, those attributes begin to be associated with the criteria of what makes a great president,” Uscinski said to The Times.

Researchers involved with the study said time, as well as political inclination, can color historians’ views of past Presidents. Joan Hoff, a feminist historian interviewed for the article, said a President’s historical persona can color our memory.

“Look at how highly JFK ranks. His accomplishments in office were practically nil,” Hoff said.

Author Gil Troy echoed this view in his interview with the paper. “I call it the ‘Presidential Stock Market,’ where the values of a presidency, over time, ebb and flow,” Troy said. “But it’s a very healthy discussion to have. The presidency is a larger-than-life office, and the men who serve there make up, in large part, the American pantheon.”

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Study Shows Liberal Bias Affects Historical Ranking Of Presidents”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • newspooner

    Regarding the title, as Dr. Phil would say, “You think??!!!!”

    Real libertarians start the ranking as follows: Jefferson, Coolidge, Tyler, Washington, Madison. Then it becomes very tricky to objectively rank, partly because an exhaustive research and analysis would be needed, and partly because much true history has been erased or deviously altered. A case in point is Lincoln. Who among us older folks did not think many years ago that “Honest Abe” was one of the “good guys”? But as more exhaustive studies and analyses have been produced in recent years, any objective patriot would certainly be dropping Lincoln’s rating with a rate that would amaze Gallileo. As to who is at the bottom, well, I am sure we all could make a great case for far too many, especially including: Wilson (or more realistically, House), F. Roosevelt (or perhaps E. Roosevelt), Obama (Soetoro?), Nixon (or more realistically Kissinger), Truman (or more realistically, Hillman), Carter, L. Johnson, Eisenhower, either Bush (or more realistically, CFR), T. Roosevelt, Hoover, and I am sure that I have omitted someone else’s valid favorite. No wonder we have been losing.

    But the Presidency is FAR LESS IMPORTANT than having a patriotic Congress. So put your efforts into electing Congressmen and Senators who truly support LOWER, LESS GOVERNMENT, and MORE INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, Obviously, we need more Congressmen like Ron Paul and more Senators like Rand Paul.

    And, work hard to get the US out of the UN, and the UN out of the US. Otherwise, all liberty will be lost.

    • nax777

      Good note. The parties are in control and the people believe they can’t beat the parties or media. People standing as one will have the parties and press talking only to each other.

      This story and all the cute comments and slams will mean nothing in less than 30 years. Invasion is of no consequence as long as the two parties can hold their power. The powers can change names and faces this too matters not. People’s desire for power will always remain a constant.

      It is irrational to think that any single payer social program will work. It is irrational for nations to tax its way out of poverty. It is irrational to help overpopulated poorer nations by becoming one. It is irrational to believe that a power convinced that you have nowhere else to go will do your biding.

      A true Conservative and a true Liberal agree on one thing though for different reasons. Any single payer social program is a nutty idea! Now each believes that it’s not so nutty as long as their side is managing it. Pubs and Dems call rational people cruel, heartless nut cases. Rational and irrational also no longer hold true meaning.

      Replace the powers with citizens that can be immediately removed by citizens and never serve for a life time. We must take control ourselves. Please join with us at you might be able to click on my name. This will take you to my link page that links to, and

      P.S. Have you heard of “you cut” @

  • eddie47d

    There really haven’t been many true conservatives in leadership positions so naturally those who vote in these surveys give a nod to whom they know. If Kennedy hadn’t been assasinated which made him very well known his popularity may have been different.Nixon came across as a conservative who supported the McCarthy era. He supported too many big brother policies and most Americans are turned off by that. Maybe bad Republican polices over shadow bad Democrat policies so Democrats get the nod. Yesterday the Patriot Act was approved again by both parties with Republicans more in favor of it.The same with withdrawal from the Afghan War and more Republicans favored staying over there. Obama might be President but it’s the Republicans who keep us in these wars and keep extending the abuse of our civil liberties.

    • EddieW

      Eddie…it’s LIBERAL…not Libertarian!! I really think Liberal is a mental disease of the highest order!! They do not want our Freedoms!! theyand the “progressives” want to undo the moral order, kill family values…and make us into some kind of dictator Police State!!
      BTW: Chemtrail Investigators Wanted (Fix the (dot)!!
      05-26-2011 • Farm Wars
      When you see a plane moving over your location, get its identity from
      Plane Finder and note if it has long trails, short trails or no trails.
      Record all data.

      It is not possible to debate with a brainwashed person, when even a mountain of evidence will not convince them! Even Court Papers were refused to be believed!!

    • eddie47d

      W.; More conjecture and conspiracy from a Libertarian? Will Libertarians ever figure out why you don’t get enough people to vote on your side. I’m a Democrat but would love to vote for Ron Paul. I know alot of you like to pigeon hole me but it isn’t going to work. There are Liberals I don’t care for and Conservatives whom I welcome their policies.

  • Thamera

    duh, really? color me surprised lol

  • JohnK

    If JFK had lived ato do what he intended to, this country would have had a much different look to it that it does now.

    Why John F. Kennedy was assassinated:

    Because he was restructuring the CIA so it could no longer be used by the ruling powers (“the capitalist cabal”) to carry out foreign and domestic terrorism

    Because he was going to restructure the Federal Reserve System so it could no longer be used by the ruling powers to manipulate the economy

    Because he was going to shut down the war in Vietnam – a war that brought the ruling powers $500 billion in armaments sales

    Because the international capitalist cabal, which has ruled the U.S. since at least 1913, wanted to regain its total stranglehold on the country

    • JohnK

      Totally opposite of this President in office now.

      • newspooner

        Not true. Both Kennedy and Obama promoted more government, higher taxes, and less individual freedom. Kennedy was a power-seeking elitist, and an amoral politician who would do whatever he could to get more power and glory. He was also a pawn of organized crime and the Establishment machine. And what a plagarist! He even stole “Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country” from the works of Khalil Gibran in the 1920′s. Or more precisely, his ghostwriter Sorensen did. And the Establishment Media never called them on the plagarism. And they made it seem like he actually wrote “Profiles in Courage”, in order to build the myth. Then there was the illegal imprisonment of Gen. Walker, the Bay of Pigs disaster, and promoting the New Wolrd Order by glorifying the United Nations. Kennedy was a disaster in his relatively short Presidency.

        Now, it is true that there were possibly reliable rumors that Kennedy was assasinated because he was going to “turn American” and do one or more of the three things that you pointed out, but extensive research by the best research organization failed to find any evidence of this. It seems like it was just planted conjecture to further the myth.

        Kennedy was assasinated to make a martyr of him. Part of the reason for this was to stem the rising tide of “conservatism”, and derail the possible election of a true American like Barry Goldwater. A large part of the plan was to blame the assination on “rightwing radicals” so that the sheeple would not become part of the rising movement. Can you imagine what would have happened if J. D. Tippet had not been in the wrong place at the wrong time for him, but the right place at the right time for us? OMG!!!!!!!

        • Albino.

          Sorry but it all sounds like conspiracy theories to me… JohnK post a source for his conspiracy (questionable at best), but newspooner you have yet to post any sources? I remain VERY skeptical as the internet has empowered the conspiracy nuts no end….!

          • Jay

            So albino, what’s your theory? Why do you think JF was killed?

          • newspooner

            You need sources? Do some research. Read the works of Khalil Gibran; it will give you some inner peace too. Google Gen. Edwin Walker and Lee Harvey Oswald. Read the researched and documented articles in The New American magazine regarding these topics. Talk to people who knew some of these people. Google Interest Equalization Act. Read the State Department document “Freedom from War”. The evidence is overwhelming. So why does the Establishment continue to deny the evil intent of so many of our recent “leaders”?

          • Albino.

            Jay…. I dot have any theories! As you keep on telling me “a theory is NOT a fact”….. Is there any facts within these theories of yours??

            I’m sorry but I’ll remain skeptical on this and stick to my science for now, YES yes science is all theories, I know, heard it all before…….!

          • James

            JFK was killed because he wanted to end our involvement in Vietnam. After he was killed, LBJ ramped that war up to the mess we had there.

          • eddie47d

            James; JFK did want to limit our involvement in Vietnam unlike LBJ who was snookered by the pro war advisers. LBJ wasn’t his own man in escalating the war. Similar to clueless G Bush and his advisers on Iraq.

          • Jay

            You stated: Jay…. I dot have any theories! As you keep on telling me “a theory is NOT a fact”….. Is there any facts within these theories of yours??

            Certainly, but a theory no doubt, is always the starting point, with the accumulation of sound and concrete evidence, that assists one in the construction of a fact(s)!

            You stated: I’m sorry but I’ll remain skeptical on this and stick to my science for now, YES yes science is all theories, I know, heard it all before…….!

            Well, if you do not have any theories, and you choose to remain skeptical, in that you dismiss any theories, insisting that you will stick to your science, of which you state, it is all theory, then why would you engage in this discussion or any other discussion for that matter? Were you tired when you responded to my post?

          • Jay

            Eddie, you failed to include obama in the list of puppets that were, and are, being snookered by the war advisers! BTW, who are these so-called shadowy war advisors?

          • Albino.

            Sorry jay little to much medication, if you know what i mean!!

          • Jay

            Albino, I understand and sympathize, maybe you should cut back on the medication?

    • bobfromct

      So LH Oswald was not acting alone? You must have seen “The Parallex View”. JFK was first to commit troops after Eisenhower sent military advisors and non-combat support. Do you think JFK should be well regarded for what he might have done? His ONLY accomplishment was the Cuban missile crisis which was a no-brainer. Otherwise, he was a loser. Another demerit to JFK was that he gave us Teddy, the liar and cheater. JFK was totally intoxicated by his power, using the taxpayers resources to facilitate his bedding of numerous women. His affair with an escort who was also sleeping with Russian/East German “diplomats” is a scandal that should never have allowed him to become president.

      • newspooner

        Your analysis is good, but even the “Cuban Missile Crisis” was fraudulent.

      • Albino.

        What about the space race? JFK got us on the track to the moon!

        • newspooner

          I think you will find that it was the incredible advances in consumer electronics (transistors, radar, computers, printed ciruit boards, metallurgical advances, etc) in the Twentieth Century that made reaching the moon possible. If anything, the IRS and the politicians slowed it down. And, of course, Eisenhower obeyed his orders and let the Russians have the first successes (Sputnik, Gargarin, etc) as a propaganda tool to push for bigger government here in the US.

  • s c

    “Historians” should be ranked according to their role models and icons. If a certain professor/historian is in love with and/or worships “certain” losers [Lenin, Marx, FDR, Alinsky, etc.], then that yahoo’s status is inherently biased (i. e., what did communists, socialists, fascists and utopian lunatics do for the world?).
    It’s no different than an ‘economist’ who stole an unmerited reputation by believing that redistribution of other people’s wealth, loss of freedom and enslavement of the American people by “elites” is the only “true” philosophy anyone should have.

  • bobfromct

    Academicians are losers by definition. They do not actively participate/compete in our society; they are observers only. By virtue of their not making any history they are rendered incapable of making valid judgements. Almost ALL of these “historians” are liberal and therefore biased in any and all assessments. Fundamentally, they would take the “French approach” to handling conflict: avoid, hide, discuss, appease, capitulate and rationalize, in that order.

  • chuckb

    newspooner, the media covered for kennedy during the missle crisis, kruschev called his bluff and kennedy backed down. the media at the time said as time goes by the story will change in jfk’s favor and it did, thanks to the liberal media and(cbs). kennedy was a do nothing president, he loved chasing women such as marilyn monroe and jacki was very active with affairs, marlon brando being one. it seems to be a failure with democratic presidents in later years, however, i believe he was a patriot and a devout hater of communism, that’s probably what got him killed. he and bobby were part of the mccarthy hearings. with the exceptions of johnson and carter who were both failures, bill clinton kept up the democratic tradition.

    • newspooner

      Kennedy was no anti-communist. His family just played the game for Cardinal Cushing who was fooled into supporting them. To be a “good Catholic” in the Boston area, you had to please Cardinal Cushing who (properly) was a fan of Pope Pius XII who was a true anti-communist.

      Unfortunately, I was never able to get Gen. Lawton to write a book about the truth of the whole McCarthy situation. The truth is quite different than what most people think. And Robert Kennedy was just as evil as his two famous brothers.


      Chuck, did you know that Johnson had a warning buzzer installed on his secretary’s desk, because Lady Bird caught him with his pants down in the Oval Office?

  • jopa

    There isn’t anyone with the manpower and resources on this site to come up with a believable answer so we may as well accept the fact that the people doing the study are right.I was surprised the Republicans came within ten spots. but there may have only been ten or twelve.

  • Jay

    It is commonly understood that Propaganda is usually employed to garner citizens’ support for current political objectives. But, these need to be placed in the proper context, in order to make them appear justified within the greater scheme of things. This fact has long been recognized, and therefore, since the eighteenth century, there has been a concerted effort to consolidate the media, in order to ensure a perception of reality, that was commensurate with the objectives of the powers that be.
    Part of this agenda has been the re-writing of history, to nurture patriotic devotion to the collective consisting of the nations of Europe and America as “Western Civilization”, to be pitted in opposition with some specific “other”. In our case, the “East”.

    The wholesale reorganization of history was undertaken at the beginning of the nineteenth century by the leading Robber Barrons. After the Civil War, the US government handed over huge tracks of land to specific individuals, who then used that land as collateral to build the railroads. The leading Robber Barrons were John D. Rockefeller and Andrew carnegie, who in turn were acting on behalf of the powerful Rothschilds in London.

    Apparently, there is some controversy as to whether or not these capitalists should be referred to instead as “captains of industry”, which excuses their exploitive methods, by claiming that they built up the industry of the US, and that towards the end of their careers, committed their funds increasingly to charitable foundations. What is not explained, however, is that these “charitable” foundations were founded to advance their objectives, and forge the nation in the direction they chose.

    With the colossal wealth they amassed in the decades prior to World War I, two boards of trustees were created, the General Education Fund (GEB), by Rockefeller, and the carnegie Endowment for Advanced Education (CFAT). Through a massive infusion of funds, they entirely reorganized the American university system, dismissing undesirable professors, and erecting facilities to concentrate on research into the physical and social sciences. Scientific research has been largely exploited to build up the military-industrial-complex, while social science has served to study human behavior, with the aim of discovering methods of coercion, and to discern and address subversive tendencies.

    As noted by McIlhanny, in The Tax-Exempt Foundations, as discovered in minutes from their meetings, these foundations asked themselves the following: “is there any means known to man more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people?” They could not find one, and so helped to precipitate WWI. Following the Great War, however, recognizing the need to maintain the control they had achieved over the “diplomatic machinery” of the US , the foundations recognized “they must control education”.

    Together, as William McIlhany described, the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations “decided the key to it is the teaching of American history and they must change that. So they then approached the most prominent of what we might call American historians at that time with the idea of getting them to alter the manner in which they presented the subject.” they recognized the success of their efforts, in not only consolidating their control over higher education, but over the government as well, and decided that if they were to maintain such control, that it would be necessary to re-write history.

    Primarily, the foundations strategy was to use the guise of the US Board of Education, by fronting as “advisers”. These produced several teacher’s leaflefts, which were distributed to educators during WWI. The first of these leaflets carefully recommended that outright lies or false information was a “mistaken view of patriotic duty”, that was likely to be counterproductive in the long run. The recommendations went on to provide detailed suggestions on what to teach, and how to teach history “properly”. Because,
    …history, properly studied or taught, is constantly reminding the individual of the larger life of the community… This common life and the ideals which guide it have been built up through the sacrifice of individuals in the past, and it is only by such sacrifices in the present that this generation can do its part in the continuing life of the local community, the State, and the Nation.

    The Myth of Western Civilization
    And as such, the myth of “Western Civilization” was born. Through their influence, the entire American educational system was coordinated to serve a centralized command, to further specific areas of scientific research, and to inculcate a proper “interpretation” of history. In Universities and the Capitalist State, Clyde Barrow commented that:

    The full-scale rewriting of history under state supervision not only facilitated a short-term justification of American participation in the war, but also helped to institutionalize a much broader and more permanent ideological conception of the United States in the social sciences and humanities.
    Initially, the notion of “Western Civilization” was created to foster a sense of identity among the Allied Powers, as members of a single civilization, pitted against the East, in the case of World War I, Germany.

    However, the development of this idea can be dated back to the early nineteenth century, with Hegel. As demonstrated by Glenn Magee, in Hegel and the Hermetic tradition, Hegel’s ideas were based on the occult. Borrowing from the Jewish Kabbalah, he developed the idea of history as progress of God coming to know himself through the intellectual evolution of man. In Hegel’s terms, this mean man’s evolution towards what he called “freedom”. This “freedom” was when man discovered that he is God.

    This idea was in the service of secret societies, most notably the Illuminati, whose goal was the eradication of Christianity, and its replacement with secular rule. Therefore, “liberty”, represented “freedom” from religion. A traditional interpretation of history according to the Bible was replaced by a version that proposed that humanity has been evolving towards secularism. Prior to Hegel, it was common for European historians to acknowledge the persistent influence of the East, but Hegel de-emphasized its contribution, in favour of celebrating the exclusive “genius” of the Greeks. As such, to foster sympathy for their objectives among the common citizenry, it was argued that secularism began among the Greeks, who were the first to question the validity of myth, and that the West steadily progressed away from “superstition”. The first great advances were with the Renaissance, which developed the philosophy of “Humanism”, which culminated in the triumph of the American and French revolutions, and the creation of “democracy”.

    “He who controls the past controls the future…He who controls the present controls the past”
    George Orwell

    Source of article:

  • 2WarAbnVet

    Forget this “ranking” twaddle. George Washington defined the office. Without him and his tenure there could never be the Presidency that we recognize today. So what we really have is Washington, and then the followers.

  • paul w brock

    I taught History for 30 years and the History Books were very biased. The Favorites were Roosevelt and Kennedy. The most maligned of course was Coolidge, Harding, Reagan, yada yada etc. My rankings based on years of study;

    Kennedy wouldn’t make the top ten. Although he couldn’t even get the Democratic nomination today i.e. his views on defense and cutting taxes.

    1. George Washington
    2. James K. Polk
    3. Abraham Lincoln
    4. Ronald Reagan
    5. Dwight Eisenhower (the fabulous 50s)
    6. Zachary Taylor (avoided the Civil War for 10 years if sooner the South might have been successful.)
    7. Calvin Coolidge (how bout 2% unemployment rate)
    8. James Monroe
    9. Theodore Roosevelt
    10. William McKinley (He inherited a worse economic mess than Obama and solved it his first term.)

    • s c

      James, thanks for not including Woodenhead Wilson, FDR or Bubba Clinton. No doubt, ultraleft progressives have their own list of ‘special’ prezzes, but then when people give themselves the right to define and re-define terms and standards of success (and morality), even Bubba Obama could get on that stellar list.

  • James

    FDR nationalized as much of the American economy as the Courts would allow. Five of his socialist programs were declared unconstitutional, as being outside the powers of the federal government. After 8 years in office and with still 17% of Americans unemployed, he badgered Japan into attacking us so he could defend the Soviet Union against the German onslaught against communism. Yet, in popular polls he’s still ranked in the top three.

  • i41

    paul w. brock, Teddy R. was another dork that believed in eugenics and deciding how to filter out who lived and died. He was just another f–king rich snobby Roosevelt. A Rino and a closet democrap at the best, we still are paying for his wildlife BS dreams and the high costs of food and energy, on made worse by his whorehound cousin FDR and the Dept of Agriculture with his registered communist sec. Wilson was FDR trainer so wat should we expect. I cna remember


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.