There are many reasons to disparage what passes for expertise and judgment among presidential historians, but there is none better than their longstanding tendency to rate Woodrow Wilson as a near-great president and Warren Harding as among the worst. By any sensible estimation, Wilson was the ultimate bottom-feeder of American presidents, while Harding swam peaceably, albeit somewhat confusedly, around the middle depths of the pond. But, historians tend to favor leaders with expansive agendas during dramatic times over those with modest goals in calmer times.

In recent years, Wilson’s off-the-charts racism has begun to take him down a notch or two in public estimation, and there have been occasional suggestions that Harding be upgraded a bit. But there’s a long way to go to right the record on these two. Here are some comparisons, informed by my own biases.

[Worth reading in full, as is typical of Robert’s work. Harding had his problems as president, but Wilson was a malicious anti-constitutionalist whose damage is felt to this day in the permanent bureaucratic state of the federal government. Some of that blame belongs to FDR and LBJ, but it was Wilson who set the table and served at least the appetizers. — Ed]