Presidential Scales- "Interesting", "Admirable", "Effective"

Reading Ann Althouse's blog, she made the following comment about President Barack Obama.

"He is the most interesting character I've seen emerge in my lifetime, perhaps. Simultaneously, he's boring! Which is interesting."

My first thought? Obama's nowhere near as interesting as Bill Clinton.

People have different definitions of who is interesting. My good rule of thumb would be that if you had to talk to that person for two hours- not a lecture but a conversation- would you enjoy hearing what they had to say on a wide variety of topics?  And while I think Obama is interesting, I think Clinton would be fascinating to talk with on a wide variety of topics.

　

My second thought? "Interesting" has no correlation to being an "Effective" President.

I say "Effective" rather than "good" because I'm trying to avoid actual political discussion. I don't agree with Clinton's philosophy, and didn't agree with many of his policies- but I can't deny he was effective in getting his agenda across.

The two aren't related- we've had effective Presdients who have been boring (Eisenhower, Johnson) and interesting Presidents who have been horrible at the job (Hoover). Choosing a President based on how "interesting" you find them is a bad idea, because the two aren't realted.

　

My third thought? "Admirable". A good quality. But not one that correlates with "Interesting" or "Effective".

We all know people that we ourselves find boring, but know they are good people. And we all know people that are fascinating, but we wouldn't trust them with our wallets, our cars, or our kids under circumstances.

On a whim, I started picking out recent Presidents, and ranking them (high, medium, or low) on all three categories:

　

Herbert Hoover: HIGH on the "Interesting" Scale (this is a man who wrote 16 books, from everything from mining to fly fishing to a biography of Woodrow Wilson). HIGH on the "Admirable" scale (in WWI, Hoover saved MILLIONS of lives by getting food to war-torn Belgium). LOW on the "Effective" Scale (one of the worst Presidents in History)

Ronald Reagan: MEDIUM on the "Interesting" Scale (on paper, he should be HIGH- former actor, lifeguard, radio announcer... ), MEDIUM on the "Admirable" scale (nothing stands out as particularly heroic or non-heroic outside of his Presidency), HIGH on the "Effectiveness" Scale (the most significant President since FDR)

Bill Clinton: HIGH on the "Interesting" Scale (of all the Presidents, probably the one you'd most like to have a beer with), LOW on the "Admirable" scale (you wouldn't trust him with your 20 year old daughter), HIGH on the "Effectiveness" Scale (He accomplished quite a bit as President)

So now we get to Barack Obama: Definitely LOW on the "Effectiveness" Scale (once he lost the Senate, he was completely unable to push any part of his agenda). MEDIUM on the "Admirable" scale (which may be a little low- he hasn't been heroic, but he hasn't really had the opportunity to be heroic).

And on the "Interesting" Scale?

This gets back to where we started. He's obviously intelligent, he is much more contemplative than most Presidents. But I also don't think he has the variety of experiences a Clinton or even a Reagan would have had to draw from.

Put me down for MEDIUM- but I'm willing to hear arguments otherwise.