An analysis of leadership among one-term presidents

Abstract

The study of the presidency would appear to be relatively simple. The sample population is relatively small, their performance is, for the most part, recorded and like the weather, it seems everyone has opinions about them. In reviewing current literature discussing presidential greatness, most historians and political scientists have generally looked to answer two questions: 1) Who were our greatest, and; 2) How should all be rank ordered? For the last 65+ years, presidential polls have been the main vehicle used to answer these questions. In doing so, researchers have generally reached out to the public and asked them to rank order the presidents from greatest to worst. The results at the top and bottom of these surveys have been relatively consistent. While the specific order may vary, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Franklin Delano Roosevelt are generally viewed as the best; with the likes of James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson and Warren Harding at or near the bottom of the rankings. As for the rest, they usually fit into one of four categories -- the near great, the average, the below average, or failures, with the one-term presidents who failed to be reelected normally being rated in the lower categories. This would seem to make sense, because they are often viewed as failed presidents. However, as surprising as it may seem, of the 43 men who have served as President of the United States, only fourteen were reelected and went on to serve past their initial term. Ten were defeated in their bid for a second term. Five failed in their attempt to win their party’s nomination to run for reelection and seven opted not to run for reelection. Additionally, five of the seven who died while in office, died during their first term and were not afforded the opportunity to run for a second term. It does not appear that any scholarly work has been done to collectively look at this group who make up a full third of the presidential population. This represents a sizable gap in political thinking to be rectified.