c. 2004 Religion News Service

(Samuel K. Atchison is an ordained minister and has worked as a policy analyst and social worker to the homeless. He currently is a prison chaplain in Trenton, N.J., and a fellow of the George H. Gallup International Institute in Princeton, N.J.)

(UNDATED) In his 1987 memoir, “Man of the House,” former House Speaker Tip O’Neill, D-Mass., argued that while he believed Ronald Reagan ranked among the nation’s worst presidents, “he would have made a hell of a king.” On the other hand, National Review, the intellectual flagship of the traditional right, has for many years praised all things Reagan.

As the nation mourns the loss of the man The New York Times called “one of the most important presidents of the 20th century,” there is the inevitable struggle to place his life, and, in particular, his presidency, in perspective.

How will history judge Ronald Reagan? By what standard will he be measured? And what will all this say about the nation that twice elected him president?

The results of a 2000 survey of 78 historians, political scientists and law professors, illustrate the breadth of opinion that exists regarding Reagan’s presidency. The study, “Ranking Our Presidents,” co-sponsored by the conservative The Federalist Society and The Wall Street Journal, ranked Reagan in the “Near Great” category, eighth overall among the presidents.

Yet belying what would appear to be a consensus among the scholars surveyed, the respondents also ranked Reagan among the most overrated presidents. Curiously, they voted him the most underrated president as well.

He was also voted the most controversial.

Further complicating the issue is the fact that in a similar study conducted four years earlier by historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Reagan ranked 25th overall. Indeed, according to the authors of The Federalist Society survey, “The 11 presidents ranked highest in this survey all made it into Schlesinger’s top 10, except Ronald Reagan.”

What this suggests is that, 15 years after leaving office, Reagan still arouses political passions, both pro and con.

Such, I suppose, is to be expected of a senior citizen who assumed the nation’s most powerful office just as a generation of baby boomers was coming into its full inheritance, for Reagan embodied an America whose imagery _ and, by extension, its values _ was the stuff of myth.

It was a myth that, in the wake of the civil rights movement, the war in Vietnam, and Watergate, was rejected by a younger generation whose faith in it had been betrayed.

A story from Reagan’s home life provides an interesting case in point. His youngest son, Ron, describes a scene in which Reagan, a lifelong churchgoer, was preparing to take the family to Sunday service. When the elder Reagan went into his son’s room to see if he was ready to leave, Ron defiantly announced that he was not a believer and would no longer attend services.

Thus did his son’s resistance, and later, that of his daughter, Patti, reflect the defiance of an entire generation.

Reagan, however, was a true believer. Like Jim Anderson, the Robert Young character in the 1950s era sitcom, “Father Knows Best,” Reagan was clearly focused and sure of his direction. In his mind, he knew what was best for his family, the nation and the world.

Nearly a generation later, his political descendant, George W. Bush, possesses a personal charm, clarity of vision and sense of purpose that are eerily reminiscent of the old man. He also arouses similar passions. As with Reagan, there is little ambivalence about Bush. You either agree with him, or you don’t.

As the electorate prepares to vote for a president this fall, one wonders whether its assessment of Reagan will reflect its judgment of Bush.

DEA/JL END ATCHISON